# Fruits Co. and others v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 993
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-09-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3268 of 2006
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/fruits-co-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-39147
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art.-226-
Expungtion of long term entry in favour
of petitioner-without notice opportunity-
994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
held-order passed utter violation of
principle
of
Natural
Justice-not
sustainable.

Held: Para 8

Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and the submissions raised on
their behalf , the petitioners have a
remedy of getting their rights declared
by filing a regular suit. Nonetheless,
keeping in view the law laid down in the
judgment referred to herein above, the
order expunging the entries that have
continued for decades together ought
not to have been passed without putting
the petitioner to notice.
Case law discussed
Chaturgun and others Versus State of U.P. and
others reported in 2005 ALJ 756.

## Text

3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter College and another V. State of U.P. and others
993
4. Sri Srivastava contends that after
having received the contention on behalf
of the petitioner the District inspector of
Schools vide order dated 2.9.2009 called
upon the respondent no.4 to submit his
reply which was submitted and which has
been considered in detail while passing
the impugned order. The error committed
by the District Inspector of Schools is that
inspite of a written request made, the said
reply of the respondent no.4 had never
been made available to the petitioner and
in the absence of any knowledge of the
contents of such objection, the petitioner
had absolutely no occasion to submit a
reply to the same.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, this Court does not find any
recital in the order dated 13.10.2009 that
the petitioner was ever made aware about
the reply submitted by the respondent
no.4 and the objections taken therein. This
was necessary as the reply submitted by
the respondent no.4 has been accepted by
the District inspector of Schools and has
also been made the basis of passing of the
impugned order. Learned counsel for the
respondents have also not been able to
point out any such material or recital to
that effect.

6. In the opinion of the Court nonsupply of the said document to the
petitioner inspite of repeated demands
violates the principles of natural justice
and the Court is supported in its opinion
by the Division Bench in the case Rayeen
Fruits Co. and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others reported in 2000 RD 440 and
M/s Nagarjuna Constructions Co. Vs.
Govt. of A.P. and others reported in
2008(12) JT 371 Paragraph 30. On
account of non-supply of the objection
filed by the respondent no.4 the cause of
the petitioner has been prejudiced and
therefore, the order impugned dated
13.10.2009 is un-sustainable.

7. For the reasons stated herein
above the order dated 13.10.2009 is set
aside and a direction is issued to the
respondent no.3 to proceed to pass a fresh
order after giving opportunity of hearing
to
the
petitioner
committee
of
management
to
rebut
the
response
submitted by the respondent no.4 as
expeditiously
as
possibly
preferably
within a period of four weeks from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order before him.

The writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD: 19:08:2009.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3268 of 2006

Sanskrit Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S. Niranjan,
Sri. Dharam Pal Singh
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh
Sri M.C. Tripathi
S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Art.-226-
Expungtion of long term entry in favour
of petitioner-without notice opportunity-
994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
held-order passed utter violation of
principle
of
Natural
Justice-not
sustainable.

Held: Para 8

Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and the submissions raised on
their behalf , the petitioners have a
remedy of getting their rights declared
by filing a regular suit. Nonetheless,
keeping in view the law laid down in the
judgment referred to herein above, the
order expunging the entries that have
continued for decades together ought
not to have been passed without putting
the petitioner to notice.
Case law discussed
Chaturgun and others Versus State of U.P. and
others reported in 2005 ALJ 756.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.N.Singh learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
standing counsel for the respondent nos.
1,2 and 3 and Sri Ajit Singh for the
respondent no.4.

2. The challenge is to the order
dated 10.4.95 as upheld by the learned
Commissioner in revision vide order
dated 23.11.05 whereby the entries
allegedly in favour of the petitioner have
been expunged.

3. The contention advanced on
behalf of the petitioner is that the
petitioner society is in possession of plot
nos. 268M, 270M and 281M total area of
20 Bighas and 3 Biswas situate in Mauja
Bingawan
Pargana/Tahsil
Kanpur
,
district Kanpur Nagar. It is submitted that
the land in question was recorded in the
name of the tenure holder since 1359 F
and the said tenure holder executed a sale
deed in favour of one Umesh Chandra
Bharadwaj. The said Umesh Chandra
Bharadwaj had executed a registered sale
deed in favour of the petitioner society in
1966 where after the petitioner society is
in continuous possession of the land in
dispute.

4. It is alleged that an ex-parte report
had been submitted by the revenue
authority
behind
the
back
of
the
petitioner, and the S.D.M. vide order
dated 10.4.95 directed the name of the
petitioner society to be expunged from the
revenue record. It is further alleged that
the petitioner had no knowledge about the
same and after obtaining a copy of the
Khatauni they preferred a revision under
section 219 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act
which has been dismissed.

5. The main contention raised on
behalf of the petitioner is that even if the
proceeding had been under taken for
expunging the name of the petitioner
society then the same ought to have been
done after giving an opportunity of
hearing, and having not done so, the
impugned orders are in violation of
principles of natural justice.

6. The submission advanced is that
long standing entries should not be
ordinarily expunged summarily and at
least an opportunity should be given
before passing such an order. In support
of his submissions learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon a decision in the
case of Chaturgun and others Versus
State of U.P. and others reported in 2005
ALJ 756.

7. Learned standing counsel and Sri
Ajit Singh learned counsel for respondent
no.4 contend that the entries in favour of
the petitioner society are fictitious and
manipulated inasmuch as they are not in
3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
995
possession of any valid title over the land
and
that
the
entries
have
been
manipulated which were rightly expunged
by the S.D.M. They further contend that
there is no requirement for interference by
this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It is further submitted that
the nature of the proceeding being
summary in nature, the petition should not
be entertained against such an order.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and the submissions raised on
their behalf , the petitioners have a
remedy of getting their rights declared by
filing a regular suit. Nonetheless, keeping
in view the law laid down in the judgment
referred to herein above, the order
expunging the entries that have continued
for decades together ought not to have
been passed without putting the petitioner
to notice.

9. In view of this no useful purpose
would be served by keeping the writ
petition pending before this Court. The
impugned order dated 10.4.95 as well as
the order of the learned Commissioner
dated 23.11.2005 are hereby set aside.
The S.D.M respondent no.3 shall be at
liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance
with law after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.

10. The writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs. Learned counsel for the
petitioner prays that the S.D.M. be
directed
to
dispose
of
the
matter
expeditiously. The S.D.M., Kanpur Nagar
shall proceed to conclude the proceedings
as expeditiously as possible but not later
than six months.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYASHREE TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64223 of 2009

Krishan Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Durga Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ghanshyam Maurya
Sri Sunil Kumar Singh
Sri Sanjiv Singh
C.S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 226-Natural
Justice-Cancellation
of
Residence
certificate-before cancellation No Notice
or opportunity of hearing given-heldorder not sustainable.

Held: Para 5

From a perusal of the order and the
averments made in paragraph 16 of the
writ petition, we are of the considered
opinion that neither any show cause
notice nor any opportunity of hearing
was afforded to the petitioner stands
established and the impugned order has
been pased in gross violation of principle
of equity, fair play and natural justice.
The same cannot be sustained which is
hereby set aside. The respondent no.3
may proceed in accordance with law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. By means of the present writ
petition the petitioner sought a writ , order