# Mohammad Hanif and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 666
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-04-29
- **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohammad-hanif-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42624
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Art.-226- Principle of
Natural
Justice-order
of
entails
Civil
Consequence-opportunity of hearing-mustimpugned order-not only cryptic but-without
any provision of law-held-unsustainable
quashed-principal Secretary Revenue to
issue circular for strict compliance of Natural
Justice-enacting penal provisions against
such erring officer.

Held: Para-11
In view of the above legal position and
undisputed
facts
that
the
order
impugned is not only cryptic but has
been
passed
without
affording
an
opportunity of hearing, it cannot be
legally sustained.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1978 SC 597; 1985 (3) SCC 398; 1989 (3)
SCC 202; 2005 (6) SCC 321; 1996 (87) RD 66;
2005 (2) AWC 1256; (2010) 13 SCC 336; AIR
1996 SC 432

## Text

666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
deprecated any State act that led to variation
in merit. There is no such matter of incidence
involved herein so as to draw a parallel from
the said decisions. The status of employment
and the purpose as pleaded were on an
altogether different footing in the said cases.
The same therefore are of no advantage to
the petitioners. The ratio of the judgment in
the case of J.K. Soni (supra) does not come
close to the controversy at hand and therefore
also does not apply on the facts of the present
case.

14. There is yet another reason for
not interfering. These are policy matters
for short-term employments. They do not
deserve to be interfered with necessarily
unless it is so grave that it may require a
redressal under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The process impedes the
implementation of such programmes that
are in public interest and in particular for
Basic Schools where conditions have fast
deteriorated.
Schemes
with domicile
restrictions like Shiksha Mitra have
survived for long, may be without such
challenge.

15. Accordingly, for all the reasons
set out hereinabove, the petition cannot
succeed and is hereby dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL.SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14972 Of 2013

Mohammad Hanif and others..Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Hari Om Yadav
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India-Art.-226- Principle of
Natural
Justice-order
of
entails
Civil
Consequence-opportunity of hearing-mustimpugned order-not only cryptic but-without
any provision of law-held-unsustainable
quashed-principal Secretary Revenue to
issue circular for strict compliance of Natural
Justice-enacting penal provisions against
such erring officer.

Held: Para-11
In view of the above legal position and
undisputed
facts
that
the
order
impugned is not only cryptic but has
been
passed
without
affording
an
opportunity of hearing, it cannot be
legally sustained.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1978 SC 597; 1985 (3) SCC 398; 1989 (3)
SCC 202; 2005 (6) SCC 321; 1996 (87) RD 66;
2005 (2) AWC 1256; (2010) 13 SCC 336; AIR
1996 SC 432

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Hari Om Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the State respondents.

2. Through this writ petition, the
petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ
of certiorari quashing the order dated
25.06.2012 passed by respondent no. 2/
Tahsildar, Sadar, District Bulandshahar.

3. On 15.03.2013, this Court
directed the learned Standing Counsel to
seek instructions in this matter apprising
the Court that under which provision of
law, the impugned order has been passed
on an application without there being any
notice to the affected party.
2 All] Mohammad Hanif and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
667

4. Dr. Madhu Tandon, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the State has
submitted that the entry of the petitioners'
name has been expunged from the revenue
record as the same was recorded without
there being any valid title. Further, they have
no right / title over the land in dispute and the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that the impugned
order has been passed on the application of
the respondent no. 3 without there being any
notice to the petitioners. In his submissions,
it is settled law that any order which leads to
civil consequences must be passed in
conformity with the principles of natural
justice and procedure adopted must be just,
fair and reasonable.

6. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties.

7. For appreciating the controversy,
it would be useful to go through the
impugned order dated 25.06.2012 passed
by respondent No. 2, which is reproduced
herein under:-

"vkj- ds-

xzke vkSjaxkckn dh [krkSuh [krk ua0 1224 ij
ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 15-06-2012 fujLr gks rFkk Hkwfe
iwoZ dh Hkk¡fr vfHkys[k esa vafdr gS A
g0 viBuh; 25-06-2012"

8. From the perusal of the order
impugned, it is apparent on the face of it
that the order is not only cryptic but the
same has been passed without affording
an
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
petitioners and without quoting any
provision of law.

9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the State could not show from the perusal
of the order that before passing the impugned
order any opportunity was offered to the
petitioners. The Apex Court in the case of
Maneka Ghandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR
1978 SC 597, Union of India vs. Tulsi Ram
Patel 1985 (3) SCC 398, I.J. Rao Assistant
Collector of Customs vs. Bibhuti Bagh
1989 (3) SCC 202, Canara Bank vs. V.K.
Awasthi 2005 (6) SCC 321, Muzeeb Vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others 1996 (87) RD 66 and Chaturgun vs.
State of U.P. 2005 (2) AWC 1256 observed
that an order which leads to civil
consequences must be passed in conformity
with the principles of natural justice.

10. Otherwise also, it is apparent
from the perusal of the impugned order
that no reason has been recorded, while
expunging the names of the petitioners
from the revenue records. The Apex court
in Sant Lal Gupta and others vs.
Modern Cooperative Group Housing
Society Limited and others, (2010) 13
SCC 336 has observed as under:

"27.....The reason is the heartbeat of
every conclusion. It introduces clarity in
an order and without the same, the order
becomes
lifeless.
Reasons
substitute
subjectivity with objectivity. The absence
of reasons renders an order indefensible/
unsustainable particularly when the order
is subject to further challenge before a
higher forum. Recording of reasons is
principle of natural justice and every
judicial order must be supported by
reasons recorded in writing. It ensures
transparency and fairness in decision
making. The person who is adversely
affected must know why his application
has been rejected. [Vide: State of Orissa
v. Dhaniram Luhar AIR 2004 SC 1794;
State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal & Ors.
(2004) 5 SCC 573; Vishnu Dev Sharma v.
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC
172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Sales
Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008)
9 SCC 407; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v.
Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026;
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR
2009 SC 2328; Ram Phal v. State of
Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258; State of
Himachal Pradesh v. Sada Ram & Anr.
(2009) 4 SCC 422; and The Secretary &
Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah
Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors., AIR
2010 SC 1285)."

11. In view of the above legal
position and undisputed facts that the
order impugned is not only cryptic but has
been
passed
without
affording
an
opportunity of hearing, it cannot be
legally sustained.

12. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The impugned order dated
25.06.2012 passed by respondent no. 2/
Tahsildar, Sadar, District Bulandshahar is
hereby quashed.

13. However, allowing of this writ
petition will not preclude the respondent
to proceed with the matter in accordance
with law.

14. Sitting in this jurisdiction, it is
being constantly noticed that the revenue
authorities are passing this type of orders
frequently; some time on an application
filed by a person and some time, in suo
motu proceeding, which extinguishes /
creates the right of a tenure holder,
without there being any notice to the
affected party and without assigning any
reason for the same.

15. These types of orders not only
affect the tenure holders, but the process
of
the
courts is
also
availed
by
challenging these orders and repeatedly,
this Court is quashing such types of
orders. In this process, sometime counter
affidavit is called for, sometime officers
are summoned and it is thereafter, orders
are being quashed, but this will not serve
the very purpose of the common people.
The Officers of the State and the subject
of the State both are governed under the
rule of law. No one can be permitted to
take law in his own hand and no one can
be permitted to proceed in an autocratic
manner, as it is the welfare State and it is
the government of the people. There are
complete mechanism prescribed either by
the Legislature by enacting Acts or by
making Rule or issuing government
orders for handling the problems. The
authorities are expected to proceed in
accordance with law. The consequence to
not proceed in accordance with law, not
only affects the tenure holders, but it also
puts pressure on the authorities/courts and
also affects the public exchequer.

16. Learned Standing Counsel
always argue that there are no basis for
recording the names of such persons in
the revenue records and that is why
entries are being expunged. It is also
being noticed that these revenue entries
are being permitted to continue years after
years; in some cases, it is permitted to
continue for more than 40 years. It is
something which is beyond understanding
that how these kinds of illegal entries are
permitted to be continued by the revenue
authorities for such a long duration; why
this has not been noticed and appropriate
action has been taken at the appropriate
levels; and whenever the action is taken, it
is always unilateral in hot haste manner
without taking any action against the
erring officers, who are involved in the
2 All] Deepak Goel Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
669
process of wrong recording of the names
in the revenue records. Without their
collusion, no one can dare to get entered
their names in the revenue records
without there being any valid titles. The
records are always kept in the custody of
the revenue authorities and if the
tampering is made in their records, it can
only be done either by the officers of the
revenue department or with the collusion
with the officials of the department with
whom records are kept.

17. In view of the observation made by
the Apex Court in Anil Baipadithaya and
Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
AIR 1996 SC 432, it is expected that action is
not only to be taken against the persons, but
also against those who have been found
involved in this process. Assuming the entries
are bogus and forged, as alleged, but the same
are of long duration, the same should not be
expunged without any discussion and without
any notice, unless it is uncontroverted. It is
very often said justice is not only to be done,
but it appears to have been done.

18. Taking note of that, the Principal
Secretary, Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow is
directed to issue a circular in this regard
requiring the revenue officers not to pass such
types of cryptic orders without there being any
notice and without assigning any reason. He is
also directed to make a penal provision in the
aforesaid circular for the erring officials, in
whose connivance names of the persons who
have no title are recorded and are permitted to
continue for a long period. He is also directed
either to file compliance report before this
Court within a period of two months or give
the reasons for not complying the same.

19. The Registry of this Court is directed
to intimate this order to the Principal Secretary,
Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow for compliance.

20. List this matter, only for having
the version of the Principal Secretary,
Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow, after three
months.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.16440 of 2013
(U/s 482 Cr. P.C.)

Deepak Goel . ..Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482-
Quashing of criminal proceeding-offence
under Section 138 of N.I. Act. ground of
challenge cheque dishonored not for want
of sufficient amount in account of drawerbut payment was stopped as the cheque
misplaced-hence no offence under section
138 made out-held-once liberty to pay the
amount of cheque given-not availed by
applicant-question of fact whether cheque
lost on payment stopped-can be decided
only during Trail-application rejected.

Held: Para-8
From a perusal of the record, it is apparent
that the applicant has a liability to make
payment to complainant for which he had
issued the cheque in question in favour of
complainant and he has not denied the his
signature on the cheque in question. The
defence set up by the applicant with respect
to the lost of cheque cannot be adjudicated
by this Court at this stage.
Case Law discussed: