# Mohammad Khalid Ameer v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 700
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-15
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 43026 of 2025
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohammad-khalid-ameer-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52970
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court/authority
shall
independently
adjudicate the matter strictly on merits in
accordance with law, wholly uninfluenced
by the impugned mutation orders (being
purely fiscal in nature) or any observation
contained herein; and all rights, contentions
and pleas of the parties on merits are
expressly kept open.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 700
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 43026 of 2025

Mohammad Khalid Ameer ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
The
matter
involves
a
challenge
to
a
demarcation order and subsequent dismissal of
appeals, where a petitioner a recorded tenureholder of a plot adjoining the land being
measured was denied notice and a hearing
during the boundary determination process.

Headnotes
Constitution of India,1950-Article 226U.P. Revenue Code,2006, U.P. Revenue
Code Rules 2016-Rule 22(2)- Rule 22(2) is
a mandatory provision-Tenure-holders of
contiguous plots are necessary parties to
demarcation
proceedings-Failure
to
provide them notice strikes at the root of
the proceedings and constitute a breach of
audi alteram partem-the rejection of the
recall
application
on
"hyper-technical
grounds" was contrary to established
law(Tarkeshwar Vs. State of U.P.)-The
petitioner as an adjoining holder was
entitled to notice under Rule 22-writ
petition allowed.(Para 9 to 23) (E-6)

Held
The court set aside the orders of the Sub
divisional
magistrate
and
Additional
commissioner. The matter was remitted to the
Sub-divisional magistrate to conduct fresh
proceedings under section 24 after providing
due notice and opportunity to all interested
parties within three months.

Case law Cited
Tarkeshwar & 2 Ors Vs State of U.P. & 5 Ors,
Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs Central Government
Industrial Tribunal, Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union
Vs Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.-
referred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Revenue Code,2006, U.P. Revenue Code
Rules 2016

List of Keywords
Demarcation,
Adjoining
tenure
holder,
mandatory notice, audi alteram partem, natural
justice
procedural
recall,
ex-parte
order,
summary inquiry

Case Arising from
Civil Jurisdiction- WRIT-C No. - 43026 of
2025

Mohammad Khalid Ameer Vs. State of U.P.
& 9 Ors

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for parties
Advs. for Petitioner:-
Arpit Malviya , Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
Advs. for Respondent:
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C, Dharmendra
Kumar, Shahbaz Ahmad Khan Shailendra Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1.
Heard
Sri
Awadhesh
Kumar
Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-respondents and Sri Dharmendra
12 All. Mohammad Khalid Ameer Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
701
Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
private respondent nos.6 to 10.

2. The petitioner contends that he is a
tenure-holder of the adjoining Plot No.
2566, while the demarcation proceedings in
respect of Plot No. 2565 were carried out
ex parte against him. The Revenue
Inspector is stated to have submitted a
report dated 06.04.2023 without conducting
any spot inspection or issuing notice to the
petitioner. Relying solely on the said
report,
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
passed an ex parte order dated 02.06.2023.

3. Upon acquiring knowledge of the ex
parte order, the petitioner filed a recall
application dated 06.06.2023, which is
stated to have been rejected on 19.12.2023
on
hyper-technical
grounds,
without
adjudicating his objections on merits.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner
preferred two appeals - Appeal No. 2903 of
2023 against the order dated 02.06.2023,
and Appeal No. 2904 of 2023 against the
rejection of the recall application. Both
appeals were dismissed by the Additional
Commissioner, Varanasi Region, vide
common order dated 06.11.2025.

5. The petitioner asserts that being
tenure-holder of a contiguous plot, he was
entitled to notice and opportunity of
hearing prior to any demarcation order
under Section 24 of the U P Revenue Code,
20061 read with Rule 22 of the U.P.
Revenue
Code
Rules,
20162.
The
impugned orders, passed without such
notice, stand vitiated for breach of natural
justice.

6. It is contended that the demarcation
having been conducted in violation of the
mandatory provision of Rule 22 of the
Rules, 2016, which requires notice to
tenure-holders of contiguous plots, the
entire proceedings and resulting orders
stand vitiated for breach of audi alteram
partem, an integral limb of the principles of
natural justice enshrined under Article 14
of the Constitution.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further points out that proceedings under
Section 28 of the Code for correction of the
revenue map concerning the same plot are
pending before the competent authority and
remain protected by an interim order. Thus,
permitting the ex parte demarcation to
operate
would
create
inconsistency
between two contemporaneous revenue
proceedings.

8. Learned counsel for the State
respondents and for the private respondents
do not dispute the ex parte nature of the
Section 24 proceedings, nor the petitioner's
entitlement, as an adjoining tenure-holder,
to notice and hearing under Rule 22.

9. Section 24 of the Code empowers
the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide
boundary
disputes
through
summary
inquiry. However, Rule 22(2) of the Rules
mandates that tenure-holders of adjoining
or contiguous plots be issued notice and
given an opportunity of hearing before
determination.
Failure
in
this
regard
amounts to violation of audi alteram
partem, which forms an integral component
of Article 14 of the Constitution.

10. This procedural safeguard ensures
fairness and transparency in boundary
determination. Land boundaries have direct
bearing on proprietary and possessory
rights; thus, ignoring the participation of
adjoining
tenure-holders
fundamentally
undermines the legitimacy of such a
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
demarcation. It is a well-settled proposition
that violation of a mandatory procedural
requirement, designed to ensure fairness,
results in illegality rather than a mere
irregularity.

11. The rationale underlying Rule 22
resonates
with
the
constitutional
requirement
of
audi
alteram
partem,
meaning "hear the other side." The
principles of natural justice are not mere
formality but a substantive guarantee that
no one shall be condemned unheard. The
doctrine
underscores
that
every
administrative or quasi-judicial authority
exercising statutory power must provide
affected persons with a fair chance of
representation before passing any order that
may prejudice their rights. The absence of
notice and opportunity to the petitioner, an
adjoining tenure-holder, therefore strikes at
the very root of the proceedings.

12. The next question is whether, in
the absence of an express provision for
recall under the Code, the Sub-Divisional
Officer was competent to recall an ex parte
demarcation order when the petitioner
approached
him
immediately
upon
knowledge of such order. This issue stands
squarely answered by this Court in
Tarkeshwar and 2 Others v. State of
U.P. and 5 Others. The Court held that
while there may not exist an express
statutory provision for recall under Section
24, such power inheres in every judicial or
quasi-judicial authority to correct its own
procedural errors when the order impugned
has resulted in denial of opportunity. This
power, described as procedural recall, is
distinct from a review on merits as
contemplated under Section 24 (4).

13. The principle of procedural recall
received
authoritative
elucidation
in
Grindlays
Bank
Ltd.
v.
Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, wherein
the Supreme Court held that even in the
absence of specific statutory authority, a
tribunal has the inherent power to recall an ex
parte award if an affected party establishes
that it was deprived of an opportunity of
hearing. The Court reasoned that such recall
does not amount to review but is rather an
exercise of correcting a procedural defect ex
debito justitiae in discharge of a duty owed to
justice itself.

14. Similarly, in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta
Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning &
Weaving Mills Ltd., the Supreme Court
reiterated that a tribunal or court retains the
jurisdiction to recall an order that has been
passed in violation of natural justice so long
as it continues to be seized of the matter, and
is not rendered functus officio. Such a power
exists to prevent miscarriage of justice
resulting from procedural errors.

15. The aforesaid principles were
comprehensively applied by this Court in
Tarkeshwar
(supra),
while
construing
Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
and Rule 22 of the Rules framed thereunder.
It was held that tenure-holders of contiguous
plots are necessary parties to demarcation
proceedings, and non-service of notice upon
them vitiates the entire exercise. It was
further observed that where an ex parte
demarcation order has been passed without
notice, the affected tenure-holder is entitled to
seek recall, and the authority concerned is not
powerless to entertain such application. The
failure to entertain or allow such procedural
recall would perpetuate injustice and frustrate
the
very
object
of
fair
adjudication
contemplated by the Code.

16. In the present case, the admitted
facts disclose a clear violation of Rule 22.
12 All. Ram Kumar Vs. Narain & Ors.
703
The Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to
determine the boundary dispute without
issuing notice or affording hearing to the
petitioner, a recorded holder of the
adjoining plot. The resultant demarcation
thereby suffers from a procedural illegality
of a fundamental character. The plea of
natural justice cannot be brushed aside on
the ground that subsequent appellate
remedies exist, for the violation is not
curable by appeal; it vitiates the proceeding
itself.

17. Applying the above principles, it
must
be
held
that
the
demarcation
proceedings culminating in the order dated
02.06.2023 suffered from a foundational
procedural illegality. The petitioner, though
a necessary party under Rule 22, was
denied notice and opportunity of hearing,
thereby offending audi alteram partem and
the mandate of the Rules. Such violation
goes to the root of the jurisdiction exercised
and renders the resultant order legally
vulnerable.

18. Once the petitioner, upon gaining
knowledge, moved a recall application
dated 06.06.2023 specifically alleging
denial of notice, the Sub-Divisional Officer
was
duty
bound,
in
the
light
of
Tarkeshwar (supra), to examine that
grievance as a matter of procedural recall
and to correct the error ex debito justitiae.
The rejection of the recall application on
hyper
technical
grounds,
without
addressing the core plea of violation of
Rule 22 and natural justice, is contrary to
the law declared in Tarkeshwar (supra) and
cannot be sustained.

19. The appellate authority, in turn,
failed to appreciate that the defect was not
a mere irregularity curable in appeal, but a
structural breach of a mandatory procedural
safeguard
that
vitiated
the
entire
proceedings. By affirming the ex parte
demarcation without curing the Rule 22
violation or recognising the maintainability
and scope of procedural recall as declared
in Tarkeshwar (supra), the Commissioner's
order dated 06.11.2025 is equally rendered
unsustainable in law.

20.
The
impugned
orders
are,
therefore, set aside.

21.
The
matter
is
remitted
to
Respondent No. 4 (Sub-Divisional Officer)
to conduct fresh proceedings under Section
24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, after
issuing due notice and opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and all other
interested parties.

22. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall
conclude the proceedings expeditiously,
preferably within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order, provided there is no
legal impediment. The parties are directed
to cooperate fully in the said proceedings.

23. The writ petition stands allowed in
the terms indicated above.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 703
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1001378 of 2000

Ram Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Narain & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: