Krishn Kant Pathak and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 18th July, 2013 passed by the Naib Tehsildar in relation to an entry being made in terms of PA-23 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 read with the provisions of the Land Record Manual.

It appears that earlier the petitioners had filed writ petition No. 38933 of 2012 in which notices were issued on 19th September, 2012 in relation to the dispute raised therein. The petition came up for consideration and the following order was passed on 15.4.2013:--

Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 9.

In substance the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.4.2012 passed by the Niab Tehsildar, Tehsil Chandauli, District Chandauli in setting aside the entries made in Pa.Ka. 23. It is contented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Considering the nature of the controversy involved and looking into the order impugned I find that the order impugned is a cryptic order on the face of record which reads as under:

From the perusal of the order it appears that no reason has been recorded in setting aside the earlier approval. It is well settled that reason is the life of the order and any order without reason cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the petitioner may file an appropriate application for recall of the order as the same has been passed without hearing the petitioner. In case such an application is filed within two weeks along with a certified copy of the order of this Court, the same shall be considered and decided by passing a reasoned order after hearing all concerned. In view of the undertaking given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no adjournment shall be sought by the petitioner except it is very urgent before the Naib Tehsildar till the petitioners'' application is decided no adverse action shall be taken pursuant to the order dated 20.4.2012.

With the aforesaid observation/direction the writ petition stands disposed of.

Learned Counsel submits that inspite of the said order the respondents on 17th May, 2013 used Police Force and brutally tried to dispossess the petitioners.

A contempt application was filed before this Court in which notices were issued and the concerned officials had been summoned in person. The contempt proceedings in contempt application No. 2871 of 2013 are stated to be still pending.

The order passed in the contempt matter has also been filed as Annexure 22 to the writ petition.

It is in between that the matter has now been decided by the Naib Tehsildar keeping in view the directions issued by the High Court on 15th April, 2013.

Learned Counsel submits that the Naib Tehsildar has completed a mere formality by hurriedly fixing dates and without appreciating the facts that were on record as well as the defence of the petitioners on the strength of previous litigation on the basis of their title over the land in dispute.

The impugned order therefore according to the petitioners was passed mala-fidely in a hurried manner to somehow overcome the proceedings of contempt.

Learned Counsel submits that petitioners have no hope for justice because the administrative authorities have acted hastily against the petitioners on the strength of administrative directions without taking recourse to law.

The grievance of the petitioners also is that the boundary of the same land has been wrongly described and made subject-matter of sale-deeds by private persons. He therefore contends that taking help of such an incorrect recital the petitioners'' existing possession is sought to be disturbed.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the submissions raised, this is a case where the petitioners have to seek the remedy of an injunction from the competent Court in case they are sought to be disturbed in their possession which they claim is being disturbed on the basis of a wrong recital contained in a sale-deed or an incorrect correction of an entry.

Apart from this, even otherwise, the order impugned is revisable keeping in view the provisions of section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this petition in view of the avail-ability of the aforesaid two remedies to the petitioners. The petition is disposed of with the said liberty. In the event the petitioners seek any interim relief in any such proceedings they shall be at liberty to do so and the concerned Court/authority shall pass orders thereon in accordance with law.