Court No. - 42
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15489 of 2021 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the gaon sabha and perused the record.
Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 21.9.2019 issued b the Tehsildar Ballia (respondent no. 3) in respect of Case No. 01920 of 2019 (Computer Case No. T201915090601921 (Santosh Kumar Pandey vs. Kalawati Devi) under Section 34 UP Revenue Code 2006 as well as order dated 19.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh respondent no. 2 in Revision No. 01738 of 2019 (Computer Case No. C201915000001738 (Santosh Kumar Pandey vs. Prem Kumari Alias Prem and others) whereby revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
It is stated that under Section 34 of the UP Revenue Code 2006 after hearing counsels for the parties an order dated 6.7.2019 was passed on merits by the Tehsildar, Banshdeeh It is alleged that thereafter a restoration application was filed by the respondent no. 6 on the ground that the order dated 6.7.2019 was an exparte one. It appears that the then Tehsildar, Banshdeeh was transferred as Tehsildar, Ballia and on administrative side he wrote a letter to the Tehildar, Ballia that his signature on the order dated 6.7.2019 appears to be doubtful and fresh orders may be passed after taking into account legal provisions after hearing learned counsel for the parties. A revision was filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid alleged order, which was dismissed on the ground that the said letter is only a miscellaneous letter and is purely administrative in nature and revision is not maintainable.
Challenging the order, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said order dated 21.9.2019 is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Tehsildar, Banshdeeh has been transferred to another place as Tehsildar, Ballia and therefore, he had no jurisdiction to pass the order and for this reason revision has also wrongly been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is only a letter dated 21.9.2019 and there is no order on judicial side and therefore, the revision was rightly rejected. It was also pointed out that enquiry has also been directed by the respondent no. 2 in this matter.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
From the prayer clause itself, it is clear that admittedly a prayer for quashing the letter dated 21.9.2019 has been prayed for and a prayer for quashing the order dated 19.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner has been prayed for. Admittedly the petitioner himself admits that annexure 5 is not an order but is only a letter.
In such view of the matter, in the opinion of the Court, the order dated 6.7.2019 still exists in favour of the petitioner and for this reason revision was also dismissed as not maintainable holding that letter dated 21.9.2019 is only a letter on the administrative side and a direction to hold enquiry has also been issued.
In such view of the matter, prima facie, as on date the order dated 6.7.2019 still exists and the same has not been set aside on the application filed by the respondent no. 6.
As such, present petition is misconceived. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the orders impugned herein.
However, it is expected that the enquiry as directed by the Commissioner shall be concluded by the authority concerned as expeditiously as possible so that justice be done.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, present petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Abhishek