Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1213 (ALL)

Vidyawati v. State of U. P.

2015-05-13

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri T.S. Mani Tripathi, holding brief of Sri S.K.S. Baghel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri R.P. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the Collector, Aligarh in Revision No. 16 (Smt. Vidya Devi v. Mewa Ram) and order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Koal, Aligarh in case No. 409 of 2009 (Mewa Ram v. Charan Singh). 2. Vide order dated 20.9.2010, the petitioner's restoration application, seeking recall of the order dated 17.5.2010 passed on restoration application filed by the petitioner, has been rejected, whereas by the subsequent order dated 8.12.2011, the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.9.2010 has been dismissed. 3. The facts giving rise to this case are that over the land in dispute, belonging to one late Charan Singh, the name of the petitioner was recorded in PA-11 vide order dated 6.2.2009. The respondent No. 4 (Mewa Ram), thereafter, filed an application under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, which was numbered as case No. 409 of 2009. The Naib Tehsildar, vide order dated 17.5.2010, set aside the order dated 6.2.2009 passed in PA 11 and allowed the mutation application by recording the name of the other side over the land in dispute. When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid order, he filed a restoration application seeking recall of the order dated 17.5.2010, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.9.2010 by the Tehsildar. The petitioner filed revision, but that too has been dismissed. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 17.5.2010 was passed ex parte as against the petitioner. The petitioner's restoration application was dismissed altogether on a different ground. This aspect of the matter had also not been examined by the Collector while deciding the revision. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's name was recorded in PA-11 after the death of Charan Singh. The petitioner's restoration application was dismissed altogether on a different ground. This aspect of the matter had also not been examined by the Collector while deciding the revision. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's name was recorded in PA-11 after the death of Charan Singh. While passing the order dated 17.5.2010 on the application of respondent No. 4, although it was observed in the order that proclamation was issued and notice was served, but from the perusal of the order, it transpires that late Charan Singh was made party in case No. 409 of 2009 and the petitioner, whose name was recorded on PA-11, was not made party. 6. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that this writ petition may be decided on its own merit without inviting any counter affidavit. The writ petition is taken up for final disposal. As has been observed that earlier, the petitioner's name was recorded in PA-11 after the death of Charan Singh, the respondent No. 4 filed an application under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. From the perusal of the order dated 17.5.2010, which has been brought on record through supplementary-affidavit, it transpires that the mutation application was decided ex-parte without considering the case of the petitioner. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 17.5.2010 has been passed without there being any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In my considered opinion, when the petitioner filed restoration application seeking recall of the order dated 17.5.2010, the Tehsildar concerned ought to have allowed the restoration application and recalled the order dated 17.5.2010 by giving liberty to the petitioner to file objection, particularly in the circumstances when the petitioner's name was recorded in P.A. 11, but instead of doing so, he has rejected the restoration application on altogether a different ground, which is patently illegal being violative of principles of natural justice. The Revisional Court too, without appreciating the fact that after the death of Charan Singh, petitioner's name was recorded in P.A. 11 and therefore, before allowing the mutation application, the petitioner ought to have been heard, has passed the impugned order without application of mind. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Revisional Court too, without appreciating the fact that after the death of Charan Singh, petitioner's name was recorded in P.A. 11 and therefore, before allowing the mutation application, the petitioner ought to have been heard, has passed the impugned order without application of mind. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the Collector, Aligarh in Revision No. 16 (Smt. Vidya Devi v. Mewa Ram), the order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Koal, Aligarh in case No. 409 of 2009 (Mewa Ram v. Charan Singh) as well as the order dated 17.5.2010 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Lodha, Koal, Aligarh in mutation case No. 409 of 2009 (Mewa Ram v. Charan Singh) are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back before the Tehsildar, Koal, Aligarh for deciding the mutation application afresh. The petitioner is directed to file her objection along with certified copy of the order of this Court before the Tehsildar concerned within a period of two weeks from today. The Tehsildar concerned, thereafter, either himself or though Naib Tehsildar to whom he authorizes, shall decide the case afresh in accordance with law, expeditiously after hearing all concerned, but not later than six months from the date of filing of the objection by the petitioner, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the learned Counsel for the parties.