Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2199 (ALL)

Ram Naresh v. State of U. P.

2014-07-24

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.: - Heard Shri H.K. Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri T.N Tripathi, who appears for respondent no. 6 Gaon Sabha, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 11.4.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur in Appeal No. 1/g-10 Ram Naresh & Others vs. State of U.P. The order dated 31.10.1992 passed by the prescribed authority in ceiling proceedings against the petitioner has also been challanged. 3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear from the record that an order is passed against the petitioners in the year 1992. by the prescribed authority in ceiling proceedings Consequential appeal is said to have been allowed and the matter was remanded back to the prescribed authority for a fresh decision on merits. A restoration application filed on behalf of the State has been allowed by the order impugned dated 11.4.2014 and the order of remand has been recalled. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is patently illegal as the earlier order of remand had been passed after hearing all the concerned parties and was not an ex parte order and, therefore, under the circumstances the Commissioner has wrongly set it aside treating it to be ex parte. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of this order, the respondent- authorities are trying to change the revenue entries. 5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, in the opinion of this Court no useful purpose is going to be served by entertaining the writ petition on the question as to whether the State has heard prior to the order or remand having being passed as the same is a question of fact and writ jurisdiction is not the forum to decide such disputed questions of fact. 6. Under the circumstances, entertaining this petition and keeping it pending is not interest of either of the parties and in the opinion of the court it proper for the parties to canvass their respective claims before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur who in pursuance of the impugned order will be required to hear the appeal on its merits afresh. 6. Under the circumstances, entertaining this petition and keeping it pending is not interest of either of the parties and in the opinion of the court it proper for the parties to canvass their respective claims before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur who in pursuance of the impugned order will be required to hear the appeal on its merits afresh. Therefore, this writ petition is being disposed of with a following direction: The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur, Division Gorakhpur on 14th August, 2014. The Commissioner-respondent no. 2 shall thereafter proceed to hear the parties on merits and shall decide the appeal in accordance with law latest by 30th August, 2014. The hearing may be concluded on a day-to-day basis if required without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revenue entries are liable to be changed, in case, no interim protection is granted it would suffice to record that at best the Amaldaramad of the order impugned can be made in the revenue record and such Amaldaramad is bound to be made. Moreover such entry/Amaldaramad does not amount to change in the revenue entry. Moreover since the petitioners claim to be in possession of the land declared surplus and no proceedings have been drawn for dispossessing them, there appears no justification for grant of any interim protection especially regarding dispossession of the petitioners. 8. However, till 30th August, 2014 the respondents are restrained from changing the revenue entries. The petitioners shall not be entitled to this benefit if they do not cooperate in the hearing of the appeal on merits. 9. Accordingly and subject to the aforesaid directions/ observations, this writ petition is disposed of.