Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 537 (ALL)

Chandramani v. Zila Adhikari Jaunpur

2016-02-15

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Sri S.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, counsel for the respondent no. 4, the Gaon Sabha. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent no. 2 from entertaining and deciding case no. 30, under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. 3. A writ of certiorari has also been claimed for quashing the order dated 16.06.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings under Section 122-B were initiated against the petitioner. These proceedings were dropped by the order dated 25.05.2015. Against this order a revision was filed before the Collector. 5. This revision has been admitted on 16.06.2015 and the Lower Court record summoned, while issuing notice to the petitioner. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision has been preferred by two revisionists, the revisionist no. 1 is the State of U.P. through Additional District Government Advocate (Revenue, Jaunpur). He submits that the Additional District Government Advocate Revenue cannot represent the State and, therefore the revision filed is incompetent. 7. The second submission is that the memo of revision has been verified by the A.D.M(R). It is submitted that the order admitting the revision has been passed by the A.D.M.(R) himself. Since, he had verified the revision, the ADM(R) could not have heard the same because no person can be judge of his own cause. 8. The third submission made is that the date fixed in the revision was 12.06.2015, on which date, the matter was adjourned for 06.07.2015, however without it being the date fixed, the matter was taken on 16.06.2015 and the revision has been admitted. 9. It is further submitted that the petitioner had lodged a caveat but the revision has been admitted without any notice or information to him and, therefore, the revision. 10. The next submission made is that it is the Collector alone, who can entertain the revision. 11. Lastly, it has been submitted that there was no resolution of the Gaon Sabha or the L.M.C. for initiating proceedings against the petitioner under Section 122-B and, therefore, the entire proceedings against the petitioner are incompetent. 12. 10. The next submission made is that it is the Collector alone, who can entertain the revision. 11. Lastly, it has been submitted that there was no resolution of the Gaon Sabha or the L.M.C. for initiating proceedings against the petitioner under Section 122-B and, therefore, the entire proceedings against the petitioner are incompetent. 12. Learned Standing counsel in rebuttal submitted that an order passed by the Tehsildar dropping proceedings under Section 122-B initiated against the petitioner has been challenged by means of a revision. In this revision, notices have been issued to the petitioner and thereafter the revision shall be decided after hearing the parties. The petitioner has no reason to be aggrieved as no order adverse to his interest has been passed till date. The writ petition is merely and attempt to scuttle the proceedings and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed with costs. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 14. The first objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisionist no. 1 in the revision has been wrongly described as the State of U.P. through Additional District Government Advocate, Jaunpur. The ADG, Jaunpur is not competent to represent the State. This is in my considered opinion, is merely a technical or typographical error which can be corrected. The respondents are therefore directed to ensure that necessary correction in the memo of revision is made. 15. As and when such amendment is made prior to the decision of the revision itself the technical objection of the petitioner will cease to exist. 16. So far as the second submission that the memo of revision had been verified by the A.D.M. (R) and the same is pending in his court, interest of justice would stand served in case a direction is issued to the Collector to either decide the revision himself or to transfer the same to some other competent court. 17. As regards the submission that the order admitting the revision has been passed on a date which was not fixed in the matter and without any notice to the petitioner who had allowed a caveat, I find substance in the submissions of learned Standing Counsel that the revision has merely been admitted, the lower court record has been summoned and notices have been issued to the petitioner. Even if it is accepted that this order has been passed on a date not fixed in the matter or without hearing the petitioner, the same in my considered opinion does not materially effect the rights of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. The same is merely a procedural defect. Since, the some has no bearing on the rights of the petitioner, the same does not appear to warrant interference by this court. 18. The question of admission of a case is a question between the person filing the case and the court. A caveator/opposite party cannot oppose admission of a case. The right of the caveator is only a right which enables him to address the court on the grant of any interim order. 19. Admittedly, no interim order has been granted. Since, the petitioner could not have opposed the admission of the revision, he cannot be said to be aggrieved even if the order dated 16.06.2015 has been passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing or if it has been admitted on a date not fixed in the matter. 20. Moreover, notices have been issued to the petitioner by this order. Admittedly, the petitioner is aware of the admission of the revision as also its pendency. He will therefore, be entitled to make his submissions before the revision is disposed of finally. It is therefore, clear that no injury has been suffered by the petitioner even if the objections raised by him is correct. 21. Before the court decides to exercise its powers conferred by under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with an order, the person at whose instance interference is sought must show and establish the injury suffered by him on account of such order. As already noted above, no irreparable injury has been suffered by the petitioner. This, in my considered opinion, is enough for refusing to interfere on mere technicalities, which are at best procedural irregularities which do not materially effect the petitioner's case or the out-come of the revision itself. 22. In so far as the submission that there exists no resolution of the Land Management Committee for filing of the revision itself, it would be relevant to note that a resolution of the Land Management Committee is mandatory in case the litigation is on behalf of Gaon Sabha. 23. 22. In so far as the submission that there exists no resolution of the Land Management Committee for filing of the revision itself, it would be relevant to note that a resolution of the Land Management Committee is mandatory in case the litigation is on behalf of Gaon Sabha. 23. Admittedly, in the instant case, the revision has been filed on behalf of State of U.P. and not by the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, even this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner lacks substance. 24. Accordingly and in view of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that the necessary correction in the description of parties in the memo of revision be got incorporated forthwith. It is further directed that the officer who had verified the revision must not hear the same and, therefore, the collector may hear it himself or transfer it to some other court of competent jurisdiction. 25. It is further provided that the revision itself may be heard and decided in the light of observations above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. 26. Accordingly and subject to the above directions/observations, this writ petition is disposed of.