# Bijenda Singh v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 257 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2012-03-16 - **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 07 of 1994 - **Bench:** Yatindra Singh, B.Amit Sthalekar, Yatindra singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bijenda-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42113 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Article 226Principle of Natural Justice-violation thereof-when allegation of fraud or misinterpretation-non compliance of Principle of Natural Justice-not fetallease granted under family planning scheme beyond scope of category given in Section 198-A of Act-held-Patta itself nonest-no statutory right going to be effected-warrant no interference under Writ jurisdiction. Held: Para 6 A person can claim protection of rules of natural justice where he has an existing right which is sought to be taken away. The petitioner admittedly had no existing right which was being taken away without following the rules of natural justice. It is for the protection of vested legal rights, which entitles him a right of hearing but where there exists no right, no hearing is required. ## Text 1 All] Bijenda Singh V. State of U.P. and others 257 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J. THE HON'BLE B.AMIT STHALEKAR,J. Special Appeal No. 07 of 1994 Bijendra Singh ...Appellants Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rajesh Misra Sri P.K.Singh Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C High Court Rules- Chapter VIII Rules 5Special Appeal-against judgment by Single judge-arises out from order of appellate authority-held-order passed by Single Judge become final-cannot be challenged under special Appeal-appeal not maintainable. Case law discussed: 1996(2) A.W.C. 981 (Delivered by Hon'ble Yatindra singh, J.) 1. This Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 06.12.1993 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellant-petitioner who was a constable in the U.P. Police filed writ petition challenging the order dismissing him from service dated 22.02.1992 passed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr and the appellate order dated 30.10.1993 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, Meerut rejecting his appeal. 3. Heard counsel for the parties. 4. Since the order under challenge in the writ petition was the appellate order passed by the DIG, Meerut Range, Merrut, the same quasi judicial order the present special appeal against the order dismissing the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the special provisions under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, 1952. 5. The law in this regard has already been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. And others Vs. Chandi Prasad Bhardwaj reported in 1996(2)A.W.C. 981, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as under: "As the order of the appellate authority has, become final by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the order from which the appeal arose cannot alone be challenged in the special appeal, for it cannot be said that though the appellate order is bad, yet the original order which was confirmed in appeal is good. Once it is found that the writ petition was filed against an appellate order and that appellate order was quashed on the original side by a learned Single judge of the High Court, it has to be held that appeal does not be under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court" 6. We, therefore, hold that the appeal is not maintainable. The same is hereby dismissed. 7. There shall be no order as to cost. --------- 258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.03.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUNIL HALI,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57 of 2001 Paras Nath Yadav and another ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Azamgarh and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Satya Prakash Sri R.L.Yadav Sri Harindra Prasad Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Sri Anuj Kumar Sri I.K.Upadhyay Constitution of India, Article 226Principle of Natural Justice-violation thereof-when allegation of fraud or misinterpretation-non compliance of Principle of Natural Justice-not fetallease granted under family planning scheme beyond scope of category given in Section 198-A of Act-held-Patta itself nonest-no statutory right going to be effected-warrant no interference under Writ jurisdiction. Held: Para 6 A person can claim protection of rules of natural justice where he has an existing right which is sought to be taken away. The petitioner admittedly had no existing right which was being taken away without following the rules of natural justice. It is for the protection of vested legal rights, which entitles him a right of hearing but where there exists no right, no hearing is required. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Hali,J. ) 1. Both the aforementioned writ petition involving identical questions of law and facts have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment treating WRIT - C No. - 57 of 2001 as leading case. 2. The petitioner was allotted a patta of the plot no. 469-Ka measuring 90 decimal, 469-Ka measuring .90 decimal and 479-Ka measuring .007 decimal situated in village Malpur Lohrai in the year 1988. An approval was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and possession of the property was handed over to the petitioner. The allotment was made in favour of the petitioner under the category of having undergone family planning. An application was moved by respondent no. 4 seeking cancellation of allotment on the ground that the order of allotment has been passed in violation of Section 198A(1) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act (in short as 'the Act'). 3. On this being brought to the notice of the Additional Commissioner, a report from the concerned agency was obtained. The objections were filed by the petitioner to the said report on 30.12.1996. It also appears that the opportunity was given to the petitioner for leading his evidence but he could not present on the date when the case was fixed. On his failure to appear, the order impugned was passed on 31.3.1998, canceling patta granted in his favour. 4. An application for recalling of the order was filed on the ground that it was an exparte order. After hearing the parties, a detailed order was passed by