# Kannaujiya v. State of U.P. this court - **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 923 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-08-17 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 21604 of 2011 - **Bench:** S.C. Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kannaujiya-v-state-of-u-p-this-court-42015 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Sri R.C. Shukla Sri P.C. Shukla Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey C.S.C. Municipal Corporation Act 1959Section-472-Power of Review-order passed in mutation proceeding under Section 213 (3)-appealble under Section 472-in absence of statutory provision of review-order without jurisdiction Held: Para 21 In mutation proceedings when an order is passed by the authority which is without jurisdiction this Court can interfere with such an order in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Present is the case of a nature where the Up Nagar Adhikari having already decided the matter on merit has reviewed the same without there being any jurisdiction to review the judgment on merits. Case Law discussed: AIR 1987 SC 2186; (1997) 2 CRC 266; 2009 (108) RD 551; 2005(98) RD 720; 1991 RD 72; 1993 (35) ALR page 332; 2002 (93) RD 6; 1956 A.L.J. 807 ## Text 2 All] Ramakant Pathak V. State of U.P. and others 923 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.C. AGARWAL,J. Criminal Misc. Application No. 21604 of 2011 Ramakant Pathak ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D.N. Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Criminal Procedure Code-Section 482notice under section 110 Cr.P.C. In Printed and Performa by Magistrate without application of judicial mindheld-illegal. Held: Para 4 In 2009 (2) JIC 918, Mahesh Prasad Kannaujiya Vs. State of U.P. this court has held that notice under Section 110 Cr.P.C. should not be given on printed proforma and the notice on cyclostyle proforma is illegal. In the instant case, also the notice has been given on a printed proforma/ cyclostyle proforma wherein name of the noticee, name of the police station, dates, name of the village are written by hand and remaining content of the notice is printed. Such a notice cannot be said to be in accordance with law and is rather illegal. Case law discussed: 2009 (2) JIC 918 (Delivered by Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the notice dated 4.5.2011 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Burhanpur, District- Azamgarh, under Section 110 Cr.P.C. in Case No. 25, State of U.P. Vs. Ramakant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the notice under Section 110 Cr.P.C. has been issued on a printed proforma with the blanks filled in by hand and there was no application of mind on the part of the S.D.M. 4. In 2009 (2) JIC 918, Mahesh Prasad Kannaujiya Vs. State of U.P. this court has held that notice under Section 110 Cr.P.C. should not be given on printed proforma and the notice on cyclostyle proforma is illegal. In the instant case, also the notice has been given on a printed proforma/ cyclostyle proforma wherein name of the noticee, name of the police station, dates, name of the village are written by hand and remaining content of the notice is printed. Such a notice cannot be said to be in accordance with law and is rather illegal. 5. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Notice dated 4.5.2011 is quashed. --------- 924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATD: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.27360 of 2008 Smt. Nirmala Devi and others ...Petitioners Versus Upper Commissioner Nagar Nigam, Allahabad and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.B.Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R.C. Shukla Sri P.C. Shukla Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey C.S.C. Municipal Corporation Act 1959Section-472-Power of Review-order passed in mutation proceeding under Section 213 (3)-appealble under Section 472-in absence of statutory provision of review-order without jurisdiction Held: Para 21 In mutation proceedings when an order is passed by the authority which is without jurisdiction this Court can interfere with such an order in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Present is the case of a nature where the Up Nagar Adhikari having already decided the matter on merit has reviewed the same without there being any jurisdiction to review the judgment on merits. Case Law discussed: AIR 1987 SC 2186; (1997) 2 CRC 266; 2009 (108) RD 551; 2005(98) RD 720; 1991 RD 72; 1993 (35) ALR page 332; 2002 (93) RD 6; 1956 A.L.J. 807 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.) 1. Heard Sri A.B.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.C.Shukla appears for respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey appears for respondent No.1. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being finally decided. 3. By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 19.5.2008, passed by Up Nagar Ayukat by which earlier order dated 11.6.2007 passed with regard to House No.337/18, Shivkuti, Allahabad has been recalled and a direction has been issued to record the name of respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7. 4. Brief facts of the case which are necessary to be noted for deciding the writ petition are- that with regard to House No.337/18 situate at Shivkuti, Allahabad an order for mutation dated 11.6.2007 was passed for mutating the name of the writ petitioners which was made subject to decision of the Civil Court, in pending Civil Suit No.613 of 1989. After the said order was passed after hearing both the parties, the proceedings were reopened on the application submitted by the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 before Mayor. The petitioners as well as respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 submitted application for mutating their names on the basis of respective sale deeds. Both the parties resisted claim of other side. The dispute regarding title between vendors of both