# Laxmi Objection Filed Appropriate Bench & Ors v. U.P. Zila Adhikari/Sub-Divisional

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1521
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1000570 of 2001
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laxmi-objection-filed-appropriate-bench-ors-v-u-p-zila-adhikari-sub-divisional-53517
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Administrative Law - Firearms -
Deposit
of
licensed
firearms
during
Parliament

## Text

5 All. Laxmi Objection Filed Appropriate Bench & Ors. Vs. U.P. Zila Adhikari/Sub-Divisional
 Officer Misrikh Sitapur & Ors.
1521
50. From the contents of paragraph
nos.10 & 25 of the counter affidavit, it is
evident that respondents have not denied the
specific averments made by the petitioner
that institution junior to the petitioner have
been granted benefit of grant-in-aid. Further,
the respondent in paragraph no.25 of the
counter affidavit admits that the institution
namely 'Junior High School Roopan Chapra,
Village & Post Roopan Chapra, District
Deoria' has been granted recognition.
However, the only excuse which they have
taken is that there is clear stipulation in the
Government Order 03.01.2017 that above
order shall not be treated to be the example
for other matters.

51. This Court may note that such
direction in the order dated 03.01.2017 cannot be
sustained in law inasmuch as the State
Government has no right to discriminate two
identically placed persons. In the present case,
once State Government has granted the benefit
of grant-in-aid to similarly placed institution
namely, 'Junior High School Roopan Chapra,
Village & Post Roopan Chapra, District Deoria',
the State Government cannot deny the said
benefit to the petitioner's institution on the
pretext that the Special Secretary, Government of
U.P. in the order dated 03.01.2017 has stated that
this shall not be treated as an example for other
cases.

52. Thus, it is evident that the action of
the respondents in not taking the petitioner's
institution on grant-in-aid is arbitrary and is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, therefore, impugned order cannot be
sustained in law for this reason also.

53. Normally this Court would have
remanded the matter to the authority to consider
the claim afresh, but in the instant case, as
already stated above that petitioner had been
contesting since 2009 and had to approach this
Court for seven times prior to filing of present
writ petition, therefore, this Court does not find it
appropriate to remand the matter to the authority
concerned to take a fresh decision.

54. It is also pertinent to note that this
Court has already held above that petitioner's
right to be taken on grant-in-aid has crystallised
under the Government Order dated 07.09.2006,
and the impugned order has not been passed on
the ground that petitioner is not eligible to be
taken on grant-in-aid under the Government
Order dated 07.09.2006 rather a new ground has
been set up that petitioner cannot be extended the
benefit of grant-in-aid on the pretext of new
Government Order dated 14.07.2020, therefore,
in such view of the fact, it would not be
appropriate to remand the matter to the authority
concerned.

55. Thus, for the reasons given above,
this Court set aside the impugned order and
directs the Respondent no.1-Special Secretary,
Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow
to take petitioner's institution on grant-in-aid and
provide full financial aid to the petitioner
forthwith.

56. The writ petition is allowed
with no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1521
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1000570 of 2001

Laxmi Objection Filed Appropriate Bench
& Ors. ....Petitioners
Versus
U.P. Zila Adhikari/ Sub-Divisional Officer
Misrikh Sitapur & Ors. ...Respondents
1522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mohd. Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Administrative Law - Judicial review of
an administrative order - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 132 - Whether a subsequent
officer has the jurisdiction to cancel a
predecessor's order without providing an
opportunity of hearing - An administrative
order passed by a subsequent officer,
which cancels a predecessor's order, is
invalid and liable to be quashed if it is
done
without
notice,
without
an
opportunity of hearing, and without a
vested power of review.(Para - 7 to 10)

Petitioner,
a
Scheduled
Caste
landless
agricultural labourer in possession of land for
over 40 years - challenged the Sub-Divisional
Officer's order cancelling earlier grant without
notice - passed allegedly on social forestry claim
- without affording the petitioner an opportunity
to be heard. (Para - 3 to 6)

HELD: - Impugned order was quashed on the
grounds that it was passed without notice or
opportunity of hearing, and the officer had no
jurisdiction to review the earlier order passed by
his predecessor. (Para - 10,11,12)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the respondent -
State.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner is challenging the order of
opposite party No.1 dated 07.02.2001 by
which earlier order dated 29.12.1997 has
been cancelled without giving opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the
petitioner belongs to scheduled caste
category and is a landless agricultural
labourer. The petitioner is in continuous
occupation and possession of the land in
question for last more than 40 years.
Initally, the said land was Usar land. The
petitioner after putting his hard labour and
skill could be able to turn the same into
fertile land. Lekhpal of the circle submitted
his report that the petitioner is in possession
of the land in question prior to 03.06.1985
and at present he has sown

4. The then Up Zila Adhikari vide
order dated 29.12.1997 considered the
report of Tehsildar and other documents
available on record of the case including
khasra No.141 in which it was recorded
that the petitioner has sown paddy crop on
the said land. The land was not reserved
under Section 132 of the Act.

5. On 08.12.2000 some employees of
the Forest Department started digging out
trenches of the land in question and on
protest being made by the petitioners, he
was
threatened
by
them
for
dire
consequences. The petitioner approached
Up Zila Adhikari, Mishrikh by way of
filing application dated 08.12.2000. The Up
Zila Adhikari vide order dated 16.12.2000,
restrained
the
Forest
Range
Officer,
Mishrikh from digging out the trenches on
the land of the petitioner. When forest
department did not comply with the
aforesaid order, the petitioner apprised the
same to Additional District Magistrate,
Sitapur, who vide order dated 30.12.2000
directed the Forest Range Officer, Misrikh
to ensure the compliance of order dated
16.12.2000.

6. The impugned order has been
passed unilaterally after sufficient long
5 All. Mohd. Arif Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1523
time, which also amounts to review of
earlier order dated 29.12.1997. A perusal of
the impugned order would reveal that on
the basis of letter sent by the Director
Incharge, Social Forestry, the order has
been passed. In the said letter, it was
alleged that the land in question was
reserved for social forestry. Then allegedly
inquiry was conducted by the Naib
Tehsildar and then impugned order was
passed by which the earlier order dated
29.12.1997 passed by his predecessor, has
been
cancelled
without
giving
any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that subsequent officer
does not have jurisdiction to review the
earlier order passed by his predecessor. His
next submission is that the order impugned
has been passed without notice and without
giving opportunity of hearing. In this
regard, statement of fact has been made in
paragraph 18 and 19 of the writ petition.

8.
On
the other
hand,
learned
Additional CSC for respondent - State
submitted that the impugned order does not
suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is
just and valid order.

9.
I
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material on
record.

10. It is admitted case of the parties
that prior to passing of the order, no notice
nor opportunity of hearing was provided to
the petitioner. It has also been admitted that
the power to review does not have with the
officer - respondent No.1, who has passed
the impugned order. The statement of fact
made in paragraph 18 & 19 of the writ
petition has been admitted in paragraph 20
of the counter affidavit that no notice nor
opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
petitioner.

11. In view of reasons recorded
above, the writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.

12. The impugned order dated
07.02.2001 is hereby quashed.

13. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1523
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1002411 of 1999

Mohd. Arif Khan & Ors. ....Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
M.A. Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Administrative Law - Firearms -
Deposit
of
licensed
firearms
during
Parliamentary elections - Arms Act, 1959 -
Section 24-A & 24-B - Validity of police
direction
requiring
deposit
-
No
suspension/cancellation of licence - Lack
of
statutory
backing
-
Election
Commission - licence-holders cannot be
compelled to deposit firearms unless
licence is suspended or cancelled in
accordance with law - no nexus between
objective sought to be achieved and
impugned action - Deposit of licensed
firearm cannot be enforced in absence of
statutory
order
suspending/cancelling