Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4632 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jawahar Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Khandelwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 23.5.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the order dated 8.6.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra.
The facts as apparent from the record are that a will deed had been executed by one Khachera son of Sukhpal on 11.8.2000 in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, an application for mutation was filed by petitioners under section 34 of the Land Revenue Act which was allowed by Tehsildar vide order dated 31.5.2003. Against that, a restoration application was filed by respondent no. 5-Angoori, which was rejected by Tehsildar vide order dated 5.9.2008. Challenging the said order of the Tehsildar, respondent no. 5 preferred a revision before the Commissioner which was later on transferred to the court of Additional Commissioner, who allowed the revision vide order dated 8.6. 2010 setting aside the order dated 5.9.2008 of the Tehsildar as well as the initial order of mutation dated 31.5.2003 and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar to decide the mutation afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. A specific finding has been recorded by the Additional Commissioner that the order dated 31.5.2003 is an ex parte order. Challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner, the petitioners preferred a revision which too was dismissed by the Board of Revenue affirming the order of the Additional Commissioner.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that vide order dated 5.9.2008 the Tehsildar passed an order rejecting the delay condonation application as well as the restoration application on merits. According to the learned counsel, since the finding recorded by the Tehsildar with regard to the delay has not been set aside by the Ist revisional authority - the Additional Commissioner, it is an error apparent on the face of record.
I have considered the argument raised and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the initial order of mutation dated 31.5.2003 is an ex parte order without hearing the respondent no. 5. It is also well settled that merely on the basis of technicalities, the party aggrieved may not be deprived of the opportunity of hearing and the Court in the interest of fair dispensation of justice, should insist for hearing of the matter on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
In that view of the matter, the orders impugned of the Additional Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue,remanding the matter for decision afresh, appear to have rightly been passed.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the extra ordinary powers under Ar. 226 of the Constitution.
In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 SNT/