Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 370 (ALL)

Krishna Gopal v. State of U. P.

2023-02-06

SAURABH LAVANIA

body2023
JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard. 2. By means of present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, in Revision No. 2285 of 2015, Computerized Case No.C- 201504002285 (Jaibul Nisha & Others v. Krishna Gopal & Others) filed under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901"). 3. It is stated that proceedings for correction of map were initiated under Section 28 of the Act of 1901, which was registered as Case No.473/315/146/90/56 (14-15), Computerized Case No. D-200904120073 (Krishna Gopal v. Jaibulnisha & Others). The respondent No.3/Collector/District Magistrate, Barabanki vide its order dated 20.05.2015 decided this case on the basis of the report of the Revenue Official dated 30.06.2014. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2015, respondent No.4 filed a revision under Section 219 of the Act of 1901, registered as Revision No. 2285 of 2015, Computerized Case No.C-201504002285 (Jaibul Nisha & Others v. Krishna Gopal & Others). This revision was allowed vide impugned order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.1- Collector, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya. 5. While assailing the order dated 04.01.2023, impugned herein, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Revisional Authority while interfering in the order of the respondent No.3/Collector/District Magistrate, Barabanki failed to appreciate the report 30.06.2014, which was the basis of the order dated 20.05.2015, as such, the order of the Revisional Authority is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be interfered by this Court and being so, indulgence of this Court is required. 6. Opposing the present petition, learned counsel for the State-Sri Vishal Sonkar and Sri Govind Kumar Chaurasiya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohan Singh, Advocate have stated that present petition relates to the proceedings initiated under Section 28 of the Act of 1901, which are summary in nature and the same were decided vide order dated 20.05.2015 and thereafter, a revision was filed, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 04.01.2023. This order is order of remand, as such, petitioner has full opportunity to place relevant pleas before the authority concerned. In these circumstances, the order of remand dated 04.01.2023 is not liable to be interfered by this Court. 7. This order is order of remand, as such, petitioner has full opportunity to place relevant pleas before the authority concerned. In these circumstances, the order of remand dated 04.01.2023 is not liable to be interfered by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the side opposite have also stated that the order of remand is justified as the Revisional Authority in its order dated 04.01.2023 has specifically observed that the revisionists before the respondent No.2 raised their objections but the said objections were not considered as required under the law. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the objection were considered by the respondent No.3- Collector/District Magistrate, Barabanki while passing the order dated 20.05.2015 and this aspects of the case has been ignored by the Revisional Authority i.e. respondent No.1-Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya while passing the order dated 04.01.2023. As such, the interference of this Court is required in the matter. 9. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that to decide the controversy it would be apt to refer the order dated 20.05.2015 passed by the respondent No.3-Collector/District Magistrate, Barabanki particularly operative portion of the same, which on reproduction reads as under:- " mHk;i{kksa mifLFkrA mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk lfgr ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk jktLo ds rdksZa dks lfoLrkj lquk x;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lqlaxr izi=ksa ,oa pdcUnhdrkZ dh fujh{k.k vk[;k dk lE;d ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA eSa pdcUnhdrkZ dh ijh{k.k v k[;k ls iw.kZr% lger g w ¡A vr% mijksDr vkyksd esa pdcUnhdrkZ }kjk izLrqr vk[;k fnukafdr 30-06-2014 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gS] rn~uqlkj rglhy ,oa jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj esa fLFkr tks0pd0 vkdj i= 45 ds Hkwfp= esa la'kks/ku fd;k tk;sA pdcUnhdrkZ }kjk izLrqr vk[;k fnukad 30-06-2014 e; utjh uD'kk vkns'k dk vax jgsxkA vkns'k dh izfr rglhynkj uokcxat ckjkcadh ,oa izHkkjh vf/kdkjh jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj dysDVªsV ckjkcadh dks izsf"kr dh tk;sA rglhynkj lEcfU/kr deZpkjh dks funsZf'kr djsa fd og e; vfHkys[k jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj esa lEcfU/kr deZpkjh dks vfHkys[k miyC/k djk;sa rFkk vius funsZ'ku esa vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djk;saA ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh i=koyh lafpr jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj dh tk;sA " 11. From a perusal of the order, quoted above, dated 20.05.2015, it reflects that the respondent No.3-Collector/District Magistrate, Barabanki has not recorded the reasons for coming to the conclusion that the report of revenue Official dated 30.06.2014 is correct, which are/were required being heartbeat of the order concerned. 12. It is settled principle of law that even the administrative authority is under obligation to record reasons for coming to the conclusion. 13. Further, the Revisional Authority i.e. respondent No.1- Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya has observed in its order dated 04.01.2023, impugned herein that the authority concerned has not taken note of the objections while passing the order dated 20.05.2015. The observations made by the respondent No.1-Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya appears to be correct. 14. Further, the respondent No.1-Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya after observing the illegality committed by the respondent No.3-Collector/District Magistrate, Barabanki while passing the order dated 20.05.2015, remanded the matter back to decide the same afresh. This aspect of the case is not in dispute. 15. In addition to above, the order of remand is simplicitor order of remand. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 04.01.2023. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 17. Before parting, it would be appropriate to point out that the authority concerned while deciding the case on merits after order of remand dated 04.01.2023 would not be influenced by any of the observations made in the order of remand.