Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 848 of 2019 Appellant :- Uma Shankar Respondent :- Aditya Raj Singh And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Kripa Shanker,Anil Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. This is thoroughly misconceived and ill-advised appeal and, in our view, amounts to gross abuse of process of law and deserves to be dismissed with cost.
2. Sri Anil Bhusan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kripa Shanker, learned counsel for appellant; and, Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel for petitioner-respondent-1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2, 3 and 4.
3. Appellant was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Debai, District Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as "Deputy Collector") who passed order dated 01.02.2019 under Section 82 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Code") as amended in 2016, rejecting application of petitioner- respondent-1 for cancellation of order dated 25.02.2006 passed under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1950") declaring land in question as abadi though as a matter of fact, it was never abadi and still was continuing to be used for agricultural purposes. Appellant in his capacity as Deputy Collector, got an enquiry conducted through Tehsildar, Debai who submitted report dated 31.12.2018 observing that since long land in question is being used for agricultural purposes and there has never been abadi, also on the date of inspection on 31.12.2018, it was being used for agriculture.
4. Despite that report, petitioner, functioning as Deputy Collector, rejected application on the ground that land in future, if sold, being result in loss of stamp revenue since there is a lot of difference between residential and agricultural land.
5. It is not in dispute that land in question in past was being used for agricultural purposes and also till date and that there is no abadi still application was rejected on wholly artificial reason.
6. This order was challenged by petitioner-respondent-1 in Writ Petition No. 19424 of 2019 and finding the order patently illegal, showing non application of mind on the part of authority concerned i.e. appellant in discharge of his duty as Deputy Collector, learned Single Judge, set aside order dated 01.02.2019 and imposed cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon appellant for passing such unmindful and illegal order.
7. Dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment, appellant has preferred this appeal to the extent of imposition of cost. Counsel for appellant could not show that land in dispute was not being used for agricultural purposes. It was never used an abadi. This finding was recorded by appellant himself while working as Deputy Collector still he declined to cancel earlier order passed under Section 143 of Act, 1950 which admittedly had no basis at all. Appellant also could give no valid reason for not applying his mind passing unmindful and illegal order. In fact, petitioner- respondent-1 has been further harassed by carrying the matter further to this Court in appeal. Therefore, in our view, while order passed by learned Single Judge warrants no interference and we dismiss this appeal but with cost of Rs. 25,000/- which shall be paid by appellant to petitioner-respondent-1 within one month.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Siddhant Sahu