Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2159 (ALL)

Ganga Dei v. State of U. P.

2014-07-21

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J.: - Heard Sri Shafi Ullah, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri A.K.Umrao holding brief of Sri M.N.Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: - (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.2.2000 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) expunging the name of the petitioner namely Ganga Dei from plot no. 21 area 0.190 hectare of the said village. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to restore the name of the petitioner Ganga Dei over the plot no.21 area 0.190 hectare in the aforesaid village. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court find fits and appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the present writ petition to the petitioner. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the the name of the petitioner has been expunged from the revenue record exparte. It is also contended that while passing the order, neither any opportunity was offered to the petitioner nor the order contains any reason. 4. Learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the Gaon Sabha state that the petition suffers from laches and it deserves to be dismissed. 5. From the perusal of the order, it is apparent that the order is not only exparte but it is cryptic also. The petitioner has brought on record various orders passed by this Court in number of writ petitions, where the writ petitions have been allowed, against the same order by which it appears the entries of number of tenure holders have been found to be forged. Otherwise also, the order suffers from breach of principle of natural justice. But considering the facts, the order has been passed almost 14 years back, third party right may have been created, therefore I am not inclined to quash the order. 6. However, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 , Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel 1985 (3) SCC 398 , I.J. Rao Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. 6. However, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 , Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel 1985 (3) SCC 398 , I.J. Rao Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Bibhuti Bagh 1989 (3) SCC 202 , Canara Bank Vs. V.K.Awasthi 2005 (6) SCC 321 , Muzeeb Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1996 (87) RD 66 and Chaturgun Vs. State of U.P. 2005 (2) AWC 1256 , the petitioner is provided post decisional hearing. 7. In this regard, the petitioner may file an application, seeking recall of the order dated 14.2.2000 accompanied with her objection to the impugned order, within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of the order of this Court. In case such an application is filed before the respondent no. 2, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merit in accordance with law expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the learned counsel for the parties, after hearing all concerned by passing a reasoned and speaking order, if possible within a period of six months from the date of filing of such an application. 8. It is provided that in case the petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute, she will not be dispossessed till the disposal of the recall application. It is further provided that in the meantime, no third party right shall be created. 9. It may be clarified that I have not addressed myself on the merit of the case and the respondent no. 2 is free to pass an independent order in accordance with law on its own merit. 10. With the aforesaid observation / direction, this writ petition is disposed of.