Court No. - 44
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12663 of 2009 Petitioner :- Kalu Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth,Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari,Vatsala Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.K. Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.7.2008 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Case No. 21 under Section 198(4) U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 15 of 2008-09.
The averment of the counsel for the petitioner in brief is that based upon a resolution passed by the Land Management Committee on 20th September, 1986, the petitioner and 34 other persons were granted lease on 30th December, 1987 for the purpose of plantation of trees. It is further argued that vide an order dated 28.7.2008, an order was passed cancelling the lease granted to the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing or calling for objections and without even furnishing the alleged report based upon which the orders have been passed. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act challenging the order of cancellation, however the same has been dismissed holding that the revision would not lie.
The main submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, which is evident from perusal of the order-sheet of Case No. 21, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the petition. Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel further argues that the proceedings initiated and concluded were not only ex-parte, but they were beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 198(6) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. It has been further specifically averred in the writ petition that the petitioner had actually planted the trees and thus the order of cancellation is not only violative of principles of natural justice, but is against the true facts besides being barred by limitation.
The Standing Counsel has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations contained in paras 9 and 11 of the writ petition stating that an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to passing of the order impugned.
However, a perusal of the order-sheet makes it clear that there is no order recording the satisfaction of service on the lease holders. In the counter affidavit, no document has been filed to demonstrate that the notices were served on the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. The affidavit sworn by the Tehsildar, Meerut Sri Raj Bahadur is misleading and against the correct facts. However, ignoring the said discrepancy, the order dated 28.7.2008 deserves to be quashed as having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
It is well settled that any order which has civil or penal consequences has to be passed after observing the principles of natural justice. In the present case, it is clear that the petitioner was never served or heard prior to passing of the order dated 28.7.2008 and on this score alone the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 28.7.2008 is quashed. The revisional order dated 16.12.2008 is also wholly erroneous as the mandate of Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act clearly provides that a revision is maintainable for correction of the errors from the orders passed by the authorities below. The Revisional Court has failed to exercise the powers vested in it and on that ground the order dated 16.12.2008 is also set aside.
During the course of the proceedings, an impleadment application being Impleadment Application No. 4 of 2019 was filed by 34 persons claiming that after the cancellation of the lease, they have been allotted lease for agricultural purposes and thus they are interested and necessary party for adjudication.
The lease allegedly granted in favour of the said applicants has been passed after the passing of the order in question on 28.7.2008 that too for agricultural purposes, however, as the order impugned dated 28.7.2008 has been set aside, the necessary consequences with regard to the lease in favour of the said applicants shall follow.
The writ petition is allowed in terms of the said direction.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 SR