Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1250 (ALL)

Omveer v. State of U. P.

2019-05-08

SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Saral Srivastava, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead District agistrate/Collector, Bulandshahr as respondent No. 5 in the array of the parties during the course of the day. Order on Writ Petition: Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dalbir Singh, learned Standing Counsel. According to the case of the petitioner, he has purchased a house in the year 1972 through sale-deed from one Harbhajan and is in possession of the said house since the time of purchase of the house, temporary (kuccha) construction was existing in the plot. Later on petitioner got a permanent construction over it. It appears that on a report of Revenue Inspector dated 18.10.2016 a proceeding under section 67-1 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated against the petitioner and consequently, a notice was issued to the petitioner. 2. In response of the said notice, petitioner submitted a reply stating therein that he had purchased the house in the year 1972 and since then he is in possession. He has categorically denied the fact that he is in possession over a land on which a pond exists. The case was registered as case No. T2016111717014006 before Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector (1st Class) District Bulandshahr-respondent No. 3. 3. It appears that the arguments were concluded in the aforesaid case on 26.12.2017 and the concerned officer respondent No. 3 fixed 8.1.2018 for delivery of judgment. On 8.1.2018 the respondent No. 3 did not deliver the judgment and the matter was fixed for 10.1.2018 for delivery of the judgment. 4. It transpires from the record that in between the respondent No. 3 obtained a fresh report from Revenue Inspector which was submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 8.1.2018. The respondent No. 3 relying upon the said report besides the other evidence on record found the possession of the petitioner over plot in question Gatta No. 457-C is illegal and passed an order of eviction of the petitioner from the said Gatta. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal case No. 00734 of 2018 before the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, wherein he contended that the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 10.1.2018 was in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as, the report dated 8.1.2018 submitted by the Revenue Inspector was not supplied to the petitioner. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal case No. 00734 of 2018 before the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, wherein he contended that the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 10.1.2018 was in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as, the report dated 8.1.2018 submitted by the Revenue Inspector was not supplied to the petitioner. The appellate authority without considering the submission of the petitioner dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of respondent No. 3 dated 10.1.2018 on 22.2.2019. 6. The aforesaid two orders are under challenge in the present writ petition. 7. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgment in the present case was reserved on 26.12.2017 and date of delivery of judgment was fixed on 8.1.2018 but on that date the judgment was not delivered and, thereafter, 10.1.2018 was fixed for delivery of judgment. In between the report dated 8.1.2018 was obtained from Revenue Inspector by the respondent No. 3 and without supplying the said report to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 relying upon the said report passed an order against him. Thus, the submission is that the report dated 8.1.2018 on which the respondent No. 3 has relied was not supplied to the petitioner nor the petitioner was afforded any opportunity to rebut the said report and consequently, the order passed by the respondent No. 3 directing for eviction of the petitioner is illegal and is in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel contends that it is not only a report dated 8.1.2018 which has been relied upon by the respondent No. 3 but the other evidence on record was also relied upon and after considering the evidence, the respondent No. 3 passed an order for eviction. 9. In alternative he contends that if this Court finds that the petitioner should have been provided the report of Revenue Inspector dated 8.1.2018, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and the matter be remanded to respondent No. 3 to decide afresh. 10. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 11. It is evident from the record that the judgment in the case was reserved on 26.12.2017 and date fixed for delivery of judgment was 8.1.2018. 10. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 11. It is evident from the record that the judgment in the case was reserved on 26.12.2017 and date fixed for delivery of judgment was 8.1.2018. It is also explicit from the record that in the meantime, the report of Revenue Inspector dated 8.1.2018 with regard to actual location of plot was obtained which was not supplied to the petitioner. The order of the respondent No. 3 reveals that he has placed reliance upon the report of Revenue Inspector dated 8.1.2018 in returning a finding against the petitioner that he is in unlawful possession of the property. 12. Since from the record, it is evident that the report dated 8.1.2018 which was obtained by respondent No. 3 after the judgment was reserved was not supplied to the petitioner though it should have been supplied to the petitioner, in the opinion of the Court the respondent No. 3 has committed illegality in passing the order by placing reliance upon the report dated 8.1.2018. The appellate authority also committed the same illegality in affirming the order of respondent No. 3. 13. Thus, for the reason given above, the order of the respondent No. 3 dated 10.1.2018 and the order of the appellate authority dated 22.2.2019 are not sustainable in law and are accordingly set-aside. 14. The respondent No. 3 is further directed to decide the matter afresh after giving proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing after supplying the report dated 8.1.2018 to the petitioner by reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from today. 15. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.