Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2479 (ALL)

Mohammad Faizal v. State of U. P.

2024-12-06

JASPREET SINGH

body2024
JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Shri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents no.5 and 6 which is taken on record. 2. In pursuance of the earlier order dated 04.12.2024 passed by this Court Shri Aakash Pandey, Naib Tehsildar, Baksi-Ka-Talab, Lucknow is present in person alongwith the original record. The order dated 04.12.2024 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions for perusal of the Court which is taken on record. However, from the perusal thereof, a query made by the Court has not been clearly explained as to under what circumstances, the order came to be passed on 09.10.2024 wherein the matter was already listed on 22.10.2024. The Naib Tehsildar, BKT, Lucknow shall appear alongwith the original records on 06.12.2024. List/put up this matter on 06.12.2024, as fresh." 3. From the perusal of the original record, it indicates that a hand written order was passed by the Presiding Officer on 09.10.2024, indicating that the counsel for the applicant (the person who had moved a restoration application) was present. Put up on 22.10.2024 for evidence of the person moving the restoration application. Thereafter with a different ink the order was continued, that thereafter, Shri Siddique Zafar was represented by his counsel Shri Prince who had filed his Vakalatnama. 4. The record further indicates that after 22.10.2024, six dates were fixed and on all the six dates the matter was not heard and dates were fixed but no order sheet is signed by the Presiding Officer, then another order dated 09.10.2024 has been passed which is a typed order and is duly signed by the Presiding Officer. 5. It is also pointed out that on the next date so fixed i.e. 22.10.2024 the members of the Bar were abstaining from judicial work, hence the next date fixed was 05.11.2024. 6. It is submitted that despite the said order sheet as mentioned above which was all hand written and is part of annexure no.6 yet a typed order dated 09.10.2024 was also passed by the Presiding Officer wherein an order directing the parties not to alienate the property was passed. 7. 6. It is submitted that despite the said order sheet as mentioned above which was all hand written and is part of annexure no.6 yet a typed order dated 09.10.2024 was also passed by the Presiding Officer wherein an order directing the parties not to alienate the property was passed. 7. It is urged that the said typed order dated 09.10.2024 the certified copy of which is annexure no.1 is completely at variance both in context of its tenor and content and both the orders have been signed by the same Presiding Officer which apparently indicates that the said order annexure no.1 has been passed in order to benefit some party and that the typed order dated 09.10.2024 was not known to the petitioner nor his counsel and it was not even passed in their presence on 09.10.2024 and thus its a fake order which is an outcome of extraneous consideration. It is in the aforesaid context that the matter was placed before the Court which persuaded the Court to summon the record which is available today. 8. This Court upon perusal of the original record finds that the order sheet starts from 12.09.2024 and goes upto 05.12.2024, however, for the sake of ready reference and ease of perusal and for testing the submissions of the petitioner, the order sheet available on the original record is being scanned and is being reproduced hereinafter:- 9. The controversy involved in the instant case relates to the fact that the proceedings were initiated by Mohd. Zunaid Siddiqui i.e. private respondent no.5 under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006. Another set of proceedings for mutation under section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 was initiated and it came to be decided on 13.08.2024. It is in this context that an application for recall was moved by Shri Mohd. Zunaid Siddiqui on 27.08.2024, seeking recall of the order dated 13.08.2024 and it is upon the said application that the restoration application was registered and notices were issued for 12.09.2024. 10. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the proceedings were going on and as already indicated above, a hand written order was passed on 09.10.2024 fixing 22.10.2024 whereas again a typed order dated 09.10.2024 was passed by which interim order was granted. 11. 10. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the proceedings were going on and as already indicated above, a hand written order was passed on 09.10.2024 fixing 22.10.2024 whereas again a typed order dated 09.10.2024 was passed by which interim order was granted. 11. From comparing the two orders it is quite evident that the content, tenor and texture of the two orders of the same date are quite distinct. 12. By means of the typed order dated 09.10.2024, the interim order has been granted whereas in terms of the hand written order the matter was adjourned simply and fixed for 22.10.2024. 13. Under what circumstances the alleged discrepancy crept in the judicial record for which a specific question was put to Shri Aakash Pandey, Naib Tehsildar who is present before the Court. Despite giving an opportunity he did not even utter a single word except that he was sorry, no explanation has been offered by Sri Pandey. Moreover, the record further reveals that the order sheet in between 22.10.2024 to 26.11.2024, 6 dates were fixed and on none of those dates there is any signature of the Presiding Officer on the order sheet and this clearly indicates dereliction of duty and violation of clear regulation which are contained in the Revenue Code Manual and needless to say it gives potentiality to manipulate the order sheet. 14. At this stage, the learned counsel for the private respondent Shri Chauhan submits that the order dated 09.10.2024 even though cannot be justified but since an order restraining the parties from alienating the property has been passed which is referable to powers under Regulation 489 of the U.P. Revenue Code Manual, hence the writ itself may not be entertained and the parties may be relegated to get their matter decided before the appropriate forum. 15. Be that as it may, the order impugned even though may be appealable or challengeable before a revisional court but at some time it also raises a much larger issue regarding deep rooted malaise which appears to be inflicting the judicial proceedings in the revenue courts. 16. This issue has been noticed by this Court in the case of Avadhesh Kumar and others Vs. District Magistrate, Lko and others , 2022 SCC Online All 636 and Mohammad Altaf Mansoor @ Chaudhary Mohammad Altaf Vs. 16. This issue has been noticed by this Court in the case of Avadhesh Kumar and others Vs. District Magistrate, Lko and others , 2022 SCC Online All 636 and Mohammad Altaf Mansoor @ Chaudhary Mohammad Altaf Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate Barabanki and others , 2024: AHC-LKO: 10233 as well as Rashish Kumar Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Judicial IInd, Lucknow Division, Lko and others decided on 03.12.2024 and despite the malaise being brought to the notice of the State Authorities, there appears to be no improvement and this matter yet again is before the Court, reflecting the rot in the system. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances where there appears to be non- compliance of basic rules of natural justice, disregard to judicial discipline and dereliction of duty which actually give rise to lot of discrepancies as well as casts a doubt and cloud over the judicial functioning which this Court in exercise of powers of superintendence exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot ignore. There may be a flaw in passing an order on merit which can be set aside on its merit. However, an error which is so palpable that it goes not only against the settled legal principles of natural justice but it also hits at the root of the judicial proprietary and judicial proceedings which are solemn proceedings and where orders are passed with solemnity by adopting fair play so that it induces confidence and faith in the judicial orders rather an attempt is made to soil and pollute the pure stream of justice especially by its Presiding Officer it goes to erode the faith which cannot be countenanced. 18. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that this Court has entertained this petition, apparently the order impugned could not be justified by the officer present in Court and even by the counsel for the private respondents (contesting party). There cannot be two orders of different nature of the same date signed by the Presiding Officer that gives rise to diabolical situation, hence, the typed order impugned dated 09.10.2024 brought on record as annexure no.1 is apparently not sustainable and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 19. There cannot be two orders of different nature of the same date signed by the Presiding Officer that gives rise to diabolical situation, hence, the typed order impugned dated 09.10.2024 brought on record as annexure no.1 is apparently not sustainable and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 19. The District Magistrate is directed to transfer this petition to some other competent court who shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law from the stage the case was on 09.10.2024 as reflected in the handwritten order of 09.10.2024 at Page 48 of this paper-book. 20. It is also directed that a copy of this order shall be placed before the Principal Secretary Revenue, Government of Uttar Pradesh who shall look into the matter and hold an inquiry against the erring officer and submit its report before this Court on 20.01.2025. 21. Accordingly, copies of the orders passed by the court as referred to in Para-16 shall along with the order of this case along with the order of Case no. 10297 (Writ-c) of 2024 decided on 06.12.2024 shall be placed before the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to take note of the deteriorating situation and it is expected that some action and solution be devised including to hold proper training of the said officer so that these debacles are reduced to the minimum. 22. The aforesaid date has been fixed only for compliance regarding the inquiry. However, as far as the impugned order is concerned, the same as already noticed above shall stand set aside. The original record provided to the Court is handed over to Shri Upender Singh, learned Standing Counsel.