Long-Standing Revenue Entries Cannot Be Disturbed In Summary Proceedings Without Notice To Affected Parties: Allahabad High Court
The Court while quashing orders affecting school's land, held that judicial decree attaining finality cannot be set at naught by administrative order passed ex-parte on a stranger's complaint after 24 years.
Justice Prakash Padia, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that revenue entries which have remained undisturbed for a decade or more, having flowed from statutory or adjudicatory processes, cannot be reversed through summary proceedings under Sections 33 and 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act unless the parties affected by such entries are afforded a hearing. The Court found that where no application for correction of the record had even been filed by any concerned person, initiating such proceedings suo motu and reclassifying land without hearing the recorded title-holder rendered the exercise of power without jurisdiction and violative of natural justice.
The Court further ruled that a judicial decree which has attained finality cannot be set at naught by an administrative authority acting nearly 24 years later on the complaint of a person wholly unconnected with the original litigation, particularly where the order recalling the consequential revenue entry was passed ex-parte within days of the complaint and without notice to any affected party, including the person in whose favour the decree operated.
Justice Prakash Padia observed, “Long standing entries cannot be disturbed in summary proceedings, thus impugned action under Section 33 & 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are also without jurisdiction as there exists no application for correction of the record filed by any person”.
“In exercise of the powers under Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, it was necessary for the respondents to have decided upon the entry on the basis of the possession. For this purpose he was required to hear the parties and in the absence of hearing the parties the order passed by respondent no. 2 is without jurisdiction and is also in breach of the principles of natural justice”, the Bench further noted.
Senior Advocate Ajay Kumar Singh and Advocate Tejas Singh appeared for the petitioners in both petitions and Ashok Pandey, Standing Counsel appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, Sunbeam School, was operating on land leased from Dhiraji Devi, whose title had been conclusively declared under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 by a 1988 decree that attained finality in 1996.
The land was subsequently declared Abadi under Section 143 in 2002, leased to the petitioner, and the school building was sanctioned by the Varanasi Development Authority. The petitioner alleged that after its Director pursued litigation against civic authorities, the district administration retaliated by setting up respondent no. 4, who later admitted this in an affidavit, to challenge the Parwana Amaldaramad.
Acting on his application, the Additional City Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed ex parte orders recalling the Parwana Amaldaramad, cancelling the Section 143 Abadi declaration, and directing that the land be recorded as a pond.
The Court noted it was undisputed that judicial and quasi-judicial orders had been set aside administratively without notice to affected persons, and that the 1988 decree itself remained intact and had never been set aside by any competent court of law.
It held that the conduct of the district administration in setting up a third party to institute proceedings stood fortified by respondent no. 4's own admission on affidavit, and that the Municipal Corporation, having itself issued a "No Objection Certificate" in 2002 disclaiming ownership of the land, was estopped from taking a contrary stand.
On the Abadi-to-Pond reclassification, the Court found that long-standing entries recorded over a decade earlier could not be disturbed in summary proceedings initiated suo motu, absent any application for correction by any person, and that the respondents were bound to hear the parties before deciding the entry based on possession.
In Writ-C No. 857 of 2013, the order dated December 15, 2012 passed by the Additional City Magistrate-III was quashed. In Writ-C No. 858 of 2013, the orders dated November 21, 2012 and December 20, 2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate were quashed. In both matters, the respondents were restrained from interfering with the running of the school on the land in question.
Cause Title: Sunbeam School v. State of U.P. and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:132093)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Ajay Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate, Tejas Singh, Advocate.
Respondent: Ashok Pandey, Standing Counsel.