# Jhinku v. Apar Ayuktprashashan Faizabad Mandal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 848
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-15
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1003912 of 2005
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jhinku-v-apar-ayuktprashashan-faizabad-mandal-ors-53781
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C S.C., Azad Khan, R.N. Gupta

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the orders passed by the revenue
authorities
rejecting
the
petitioner's
application for correction of the map of
Gata No. 471 were vitiated on account of
non-consideration of the Naib Tehsildar's
spot inspection report dated 18.08.1991 ?

HEADNOTE
Correction of map - U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 - S. 28 - Report of Naib Tehsildar after
spot inspection - Mandatory consideration of
material evidence - Revenue authorities noticed
the report but failed to consider it or return any
finding thereon - Non-application of mind -
Orders vitiated - Impugned orders quashed -
Writ petition allowed. (Paras 31-46)

HELD
An application was moved by the petitioner for
correction of the map in accordance with the
Khatauni. The Naib Tehsildar conducted a spot
inspection and submitted a report dated
18.08.1991. Though the said report was noticed
by respondent no. 2, no finding was returned
thereon and the petitioner's application was
rejected. Non-consideration of relevant and
material evidence vitiates both the original and
the revisional orders. The impugned orders were
quashed
and
the
writ
petition
was
allowed.(Paras 3,9) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
9 All. Jhinku Vs. Apar Ayuktprashashan Faizabad Mandal & Ors.
849
List of Acts
U.P.
Land
Revenue
Act,
1901

List of Keywords
Correction of map - Revenue records - Spot
inspection - Naib Tehsildar's report - Nonconsideration of evidence - Non-application of
mind - Apparent illegality

CASE ARISING FROM
Orders dated 19.04.2005 passed
by the
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division
and
09.02.1999/09.02.2019 passed by the revenue
authority concerned.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: R.P. Maurya; Mukul
Misra; Ninnie Shrivastava
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Azad Khan;
R.N. Gupta

## Text

848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the cancellation of the allotment or
lease of such land, shall abate.]"

19. On perusal of aforesaid provision,
it is evident that show cause notice prior to
passing of the order is necessary to be
given within a week to the aggrieved
person and non providing of opportunity of
hearing vitiates the order passed under
Section 198 (4) of the Act.

20. As per judgment in the case of
Suresh Giri (Supra), it has been held that
prior to cancellation of allotment of lease,
the person adversely affected is entitled to
issue show cause notice as provided under
Section 198 (5) of the Act. In the case of
Jiya Ram & 16 others (Supra), it has
been held that beyond time of limitation no
notice can be issued under Section 198(4)
of the Act. In the case of Sambhunath Rai
(Supra), it has been held that in case there
is specific averment of violation of show
cause notice, statement of fact is treated to
be true.

21. In view of facts and circumstances
narrated above, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned order has been
passed in violation of principles of natural
justice and beyond time limit prescribed
under law, therefore, the impugned order
dated 27.04.2001 is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

22. Accordingly, the order dated
27.04.2001 is hereby quashed.

23. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 848
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1003912 of 2005

Jhinku ...Petitioner
Versus
Apar Ayuktprashashan Faizabad Mandal &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
R.P.
Maurya,
Mukul
Misra,
Ninnie
Shrivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C., Azad Khan, R.N. Gupta

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the orders passed by the revenue
authorities
rejecting
the
petitioner's
application for correction of the map of
Gata No. 471 were vitiated on account of
non-consideration of the Naib Tehsildar's
spot inspection report dated 18.08.1991 ?

HEADNOTE
Correction of map - U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 - S. 28 - Report of Naib Tehsildar after
spot inspection - Mandatory consideration of
material evidence - Revenue authorities noticed
the report but failed to consider it or return any
finding thereon - Non-application of mind -
Orders vitiated - Impugned orders quashed -
Writ petition allowed. (Paras 31-46)

HELD
An application was moved by the petitioner for
correction of the map in accordance with the
Khatauni. The Naib Tehsildar conducted a spot
inspection and submitted a report dated
18.08.1991. Though the said report was noticed
by respondent no. 2, no finding was returned
thereon and the petitioner's application was
rejected. Non-consideration of relevant and
material evidence vitiates both the original and
the revisional orders. The impugned orders were
quashed
and
the
writ
petition
was
allowed.(Paras 3,9) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
9 All. Jhinku Vs. Apar Ayuktprashashan Faizabad Mandal & Ors.
849
List of Acts
U.P.
Land
Revenue
Act,
1901

List of Keywords
Correction of map - Revenue records - Spot
inspection - Naib Tehsildar's report - Nonconsideration of evidence - Non-application of
mind - Apparent illegality

CASE ARISING FROM
Orders dated 19.04.2005 passed
by the
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division
and
09.02.1999/09.02.2019 passed by the revenue
authority concerned.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: R.P. Maurya; Mukul
Misra; Ninnie Shrivastava
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Azad Khan;
R.N. Gupta

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Ninnie Shrivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondents-State.

2. By means of the present writ petition,
the petitioner is challenging the orders passed
by the respondent nos.1 and 2 dated
19.4.2005 and 9.2.2019 (Annexures-1 and 2
to the writ petition) respectively with further
prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondents to
correct the map of Gata No.471 as per
Khatuani within a period specified by this
Court.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the
petitioner is transferable right of Khata
No.163/ Gata No.471, area 2 bigha, 2 bishwa,
17 bishwansi, on which the petitioner is using
the land for agricultural purpose which was
made available to the petitioner during the
course of consolidation proceedings. On
measurement as per the Khatuani, the land
was found short, therefore an application was
moved by the petitioner to correct the map in
accordance with the Khatauni. During the
course of consolidation proceeding, Gata
No.471 was measured in presence of Lekhpal
and
Gata
No.471
during
course
of
measurement
was
found
short.
Upon
knowing the fact in regard to Gata No.471 to
be short, the petitioner moved an application
under Section 28 and a case was registered as
Case No.151/4 before the respondent no.2, on
which Naib Tehsildar, Akbarganj, on spot
inspection, submitted a report before the
respondent no.2 on 18.8.1991. Respondent
no.2, taking into notice of the report
submitted by Naib Tehsildar on 18.8.1991
and ignoring the report, rejected suit filed by
the petitioner vide order dated 9.2.1999,
against which the petitioner filed Revision
No.1116 under Section 219 U.P. Revenue
Act before the Commissioner, Faizabad
Division, Faizabad which has also been
rejected vide order dated 16.4.2005. Feeling
aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner
has preferred the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. On bare perusal of the order passed
by the respondent no.2, it is evident that he
has taken notice of the report of Naib
Tehsildar dated 18.8.1991, but nowhere
considered the same and rejected the suit
filed by the petitioner. The Revisional Court
has also failed to appreciate the report of the
Naib Tehsildar dated 18.8.1991 and has also
rejected the claim set up by the petitioner.

5. Submission of learned counsel for
the
petitioner
is
that
due
to
nonconsideration of the report of the Naib
Tehsildar
dated
18.8.1991,
impugned
orders suffer from apparent illegality and
are liable to be set aside.

6. Next submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that notice was taken
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
into consideration, but no finding has return
on the report submitted by the Naib
Tehsildar on 18.8.1991 due to which the
orders are per se illegal.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing
Counsel has vehemently has opposed the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner and has submitted that the
report was taken into consideration and
thereafter, the orders were passed, therefore
the orders do not suffer from any infirmity
or illegality and the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties I have perused the material
available on record.

9. On perusal of the order of the
respondent no.2, it is evident that he has
taken notice of the report of the Naib
Tehsildar dated 18.8.1991, but no finding
has
return
nor
it
was
taken
into
consideration while passing the impugned
order and due to non-consideration of the
report, the impugned order suffers from
apparent illegality and is liable to be set
aside.

10. Revisional Authority has also
ignored that the report was submitted
which was taken into notice while
passing the order by the respondent no.2
but
that
to
was
not
taken
into
consideration while passing the order
impugned, therefore the order of the
Revisional Authority is per se illegal and
is liable to be set aside.

11. Considering in totalities of facts
and circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered opinion that due to non-taking
into consideration the report of Naib
Tehsildar dated 18.8.1991, the impugned
orders suffer from apparent illegality and is
liable to be quashed by this Court.

12. Accordingly, orders passed by the
respondent nos.1 and 2 dated 19.4.2005 and
9.2.2019 (Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ
petition) are hereby quashed. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 850
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ Tax No. 389 of 2023

M/S Safecon Lifescience Private Limited
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Suyash Agarwal, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether proceedings under S.
74 of the UPGST Act could be validly initiated
against the petitioner for alleged wrongful Input
Tax Credit (ITC), despite (i) actual movement of
goods, (ii) payment of tax through banking
channels, (iii) GSTR-1 / GSTR-3B reflection, and
(iv) absence of any finding of "fraud", "wilful
mis-statement" or "suppression of facts".

Headnotes
U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - S.
74
-
Initiation
of
proceedings
-
Requirement
of
fraud,
willful
misstatement or suppression of facts - Show
cause notice and adverse inference -