Vijay Pal Singh vs Tilak Singh and Others

Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. D.D. Chauhan, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 4. None responded for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to impugn the order dated 7.11.2001 (Annexure-3) and the order dated 30.10.2006 (Annexure-6).

The order dated 7.11.2001 was passed by the Up Ziladhikari, Jasrana, Firozabad whereby the name of the petitioner was directed to be expunged from the revenue record in regard to plot No. 5874 area 0.648 Hectare of village Eka, Tehsil Jasrana, Firozabad. The petitioner moved an application before the Up Ziladhikari u/s 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for setting aside the order dated 7.11.2001 on the ground that it was ex parte and no notice was given to him. The learned Up-Ziladhikari, Jasrana, Firozabad rejected the petitioner''s restoration application vide his order dated 5.3.2003 (Annexure-4). The petitioner then filed a revision (Revision No. 120 of 2003) before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra which was heard and decided on 30.10.2006 by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Agra Division, Agra. The learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision by holding that no notice was required to be given to the petitioner nor he was entitled to have any opportunity of hearing because his name was fictitious in the revenue record.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner''s name was recorded in the revenue record on the basis of a patta given by the Land Management Committee which was duly approved by the concerned Up-Ziladhikari. It was also submitted that the petitioner''s name continued in the revenue records for about more than 13 years. The impugned order dated 7.11.2001 was passed only on the basis of a photocopy of the Form No. 57 kha and even without perusal of the original patta and relevant file. No attempt was made to procure the original record relating to patta. It was also submitted that in view of this peculiar situation the petitioner was at least entitled to be heard before passing of the impugned order.

It is well-settled that no one should be condemned unheard. It is mandatory to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected person, if the impugned order has a civil consequence against him. The view of the learned Additional Commissioner that the petitioner was not entitled to be heard in view of the fact that the revenue entry in his favour was forged, cannot be upheld. The fact that the entries in favour of the petitioner were forged could only be decided after providing him an opportunity of hearing. A perusal of the record clearly reveals that the petitioner was neither given any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to him by Up Ziladhikari before passing the order dated 7.11.2001 and as such the order dated 7.11.2001 and subsequent orders cannot be sustained.

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 7.11.2001. 5.3.2003 and 30.10.2006 are quashed. The matter is remanded to the Up Ziladhikari, Jasrana, Firozabad for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law.