Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 549 (ALL)

Albal v. State of U. P.

2017-02-15

RAJAN ROY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The S.D.M. who was summoned is present. He admits to the fact that the earlier order dated 04.04.2016 passed by his predecessor asking the petitioner herein to file objections to the review application filed by the D.D.C., Revenue was an error albeit a bonafide one and it is based on the said order that the subsequent proceedings took place and ultimately the order impugned dated 31.08.2009 was passed stating that the review application had already been decided and the order doing so having been upheld by the revisional Court, therefore, there was no question of again considering the same. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that an order was passed under Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 on merits by the S.D.M. on 18.02.2009 after due notice to the parties and a written statement was filed on behalf of the State/Gaon Sabha, however, surprisingly enough, an application for review/ recall was filed by the D.D.C. Revenue on the ground that the order had been passed ex-parte. Without due application of mind the order passed on merits dated 18.02.2009 was recalled by the S.D.M. on 31.08.2009 i.e. on the very date the application for recall was filed without issuing any notice of hearing the affected party i.e. petitioner herein. He has also invited the attention of the Court to the said order and has contended that same does not disclose any reason. 4. This Court has perused the original order dated 18.02.2009 alleged to have been passed on merits and it finds that the said order also suffers from the defect of want of due and judicious application of mind to the facts and issues and is a rather cryptic order. 5. As far as the order dated 31.08.2009 is concerned, the same also does not disclose any due and judicious application of mind and no opportunity to the affected parties, a fact which is not denied by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 6. Both the orders in my view, do not confirm to the requirements of law. 5. As far as the order dated 31.08.2009 is concerned, the same also does not disclose any due and judicious application of mind and no opportunity to the affected parties, a fact which is not denied by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 6. Both the orders in my view, do not confirm to the requirements of law. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, even if the contention of the petitioner with regard to the order dated 31.08.2009 is accepted which in fact is acceptable for the reason aforesaid, the fact remains that the order dated 18.02.2009 is also not as per the law, therefore, this Court can not shut its eyes to this glaring fact also, accordingly, ends of justice would be met, if the matter is allowed to be decided a fresh. 7. In view of the aforesaid statement, the S.D.M. is ordered to dispose of the proceedings pending before him expeditiously. Let the proceedings be concluded by the S.D.M. within a period of three months from today with due notice to the parties and in accordance with law. 8. The officers concerned shall see to it that in future their orders reflect a proper consideration of the facts and issues involved rather than the lack of it as disclosed in the orders on record of this case. 9. It is expected that the S.D.M. shall take appropriate decision as per law uninfluenced from any quarter, as the petitioner alleges political influence. 10. Till conclusion of proceedings as aforesaid and subject to it status quo as regards possession in respect of the plots in question shall be maintained by the parties. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the merits of the controversy involved in those proceedings. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.