# Ripunjay Rai v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 901
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-22
- **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ripunjay-rai-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50042
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
- Sections 33/39 & 219 - Proceeding
arising out of expungement of the name
from the revenue records - Report of
Revenue Inspector, supported by Akaar
Patra 45, reveals that the plot, in question
is recorded as pond along with some other
sharers under the capacity of bhumidar
with
transferable
rights
-
Nonconsideration of the report - Effect - High
Court quashed the impugned orders on
the
ground
of
non consideration
of
material placed before the Authority.
(Para 9, 10 and 11)
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Ripunjay Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
901

14. We are therefore not persuaded by
this argument to hold that his inclusion in
interim
managing
committee
is
not
permissible in law and we reject this
contention.

15. Now the only issue which remains
to be considered is with regard to holding
of
elections
to
the
committee
of
management of the Cooperative Society in
question. In this regard, Shri Gaurav
Mehrotra
informed
that
earlier
a
notification for election was issued but on
account of non-provision of list of voters
by the Secretary or Managing Director of
the Cooperative Society, the process could
not be completed and now it will have to be
re-notified and in this process the interim
managing committee will have to provide
relevant information as envisaged in Rule
12 of Rules 2014 including the list of
voters.

16. In view of above, we provide that
the interim management committee or if
there is any Secretary or Managing
Director shall undertake an exercise in this
regard in terms of Rule 12 at the
appropriate stage and provide requisite
information to the Election Commission in
accordance with law and the Election
Commission on its part shall proceed to
notify the election and ensure that it is held
in fair and objective manner in accordance
with law, at the earliest.

17. We further direct the interim
management committee to undertake the
aforesaid exercise as envisaged in Rule 12
straightaway without waiting for the
notification of Election by the Commission,
so that as soon as the elections are notified
the information is ready at their level for
being forwarded to the concerned officer or
the Election Commission as the case may
be, and elections may not get delayed,
postponed or cancelled only on account of
any omission on its part. The aforesaid in
our opinion shall meet the ends of justice
and redress the grievance of the petitioner,
if any. So far as the impugned order
Annexure No.1 is concerned, we find no
reason to interfere with it.

18. Writ petition is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 901
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No .2298 of 2023

Ripunjay Rai ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashok Kumar Maurya, Sri
Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, Sri Vijay Bhan
Singh

A. Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
- Sections 33/39 & 219 - Proceeding
arising out of expungement of the name
from the revenue records - Report of
Revenue Inspector, supported by Akaar
Patra 45, reveals that the plot, in question
is recorded as pond along with some other
sharers under the capacity of bhumidar
with
transferable
rights
-
Nonconsideration of the report - Effect - High
Court quashed the impugned orders on
the
ground
of
non consideration
of
material placed before the Authority.
(Para 9, 10 and 11)
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Writ C No.14880 of 2015; Chandra Public
School Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on
02.08.2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Rai,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondent
Nos.1 to 3, Sri Vijay Bhan Singh, learned
counsel holding brief of Sri R.P. Shukla,
learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and
Sri Ashok Kumar Maurya, learned counsel
for the respondent no.5.

2. The present petition has been
instituted for challenging the orders dated
29.07.2017 and 10.02.2021 passed by the
respondent nos.3 and 2 respectively during
the proceedings initiated under Section
33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
and revision under Section 219 of U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901.

3. The motion has been initiated over
the
complaint
as
preferred
by
the
respondent no.5 for seeking expungement
of the name of the petitioner from the
revenue records on the basis of record of
rights
wherein
the
pond
has
been
mentioned against old Plot No.293, situated
at Village Banahra, Pargana Sikandarpur,
District Ballia and after receiving the report
dated 20.05.2014 from the concerned
Revenue Inspector along with legal opinion
of
the
District
Government
Counsel
(Revenue), notices have been issued to the
petitioner for calling his objection/reply for
substantiating his rights over the Plot
No.293 which has been subsequently
numbered as Plot No.117 situated in the
same village. In response to the call of the
respondent no.3, a detailed objection was
preferred by the petitioner on dated
10.09.2014, wherein specific stand taken
up that the Plot No.116-117 has recorded in
1356, 1359, 1360 F against the name of
predecessors of the petitioners and now he
is well occupant of the same and extract of
the records of right have been appended
along with the petition as Annexure-1.

4. It is the specific stand taken by the
petitioner that the old Plot No.293 which
has been converted and given a new
number i.e. Plot No.117 is not solely
entered in the revenue record against pond,
whereas there are several other co-sharers
who are having their legal possession over
the same under the capacity of the entries
available in the revenue records for a long
time.

5. The stand taken up by the petitioner
before the proceedings initiated by the
respondent no.3 is somehow co-relates with
the report submitted by the concerned
Revenue Inspector on dated 20.05.2014.
The extract of the report is quoted
hereinbelow:-

"...ekStk cMgjk ij0 fl0iwohZ rg0
fldUnjiqj ds xkVk la0 117 o 116 dk
vfHkys[kh; o LFkyh; tkWp fd;kA xkVk la0 117
feutqfeyk uEcj gS rFkk mlds vafdr [kkrsnkjku
ladze.kh; Hkwfe gSA xkVk la0 117 dk nkSjku
pdcUnh jdck ds vuqlkj foHkktu fd;k x;k gS&
[kkrk la0&130 esa 117 d@0&07fM0 o [kkrk la0
49 esa 117[k@0&11fM0 [kkrk la0 14 esa
117x@0&14 fM0 [kkrk la0 177 esa 117/k@0&32
fM0 o [kkrk la0 203 esa 117M@0-39fM0 vuqlkj
[ksr pdcUnh vkdkj i= 41] 45 esa foHkkftr
fd;k x;k gSA..."

6. The abovementioned findings
which have been reported by the concerned
Revenue Inspector with regard to Plot
4 All. Ripunjay Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903
No.117 is concerned, the same has been
mentioned in Akaar Patra 41 and 45 during
the consolidation carried out in the same
village. The same has been placed before
the respondent no.3 while filing his detailed
objection with regard to substantiating his
rights over the Plot No.117. It is apparent
from the record that while adjudicating the
Case No.227 of 2015, under Section 33/39
of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 although
the basis of the order dated 29.07.2017 has
been given on the report dated 20.05.2014
submitted by the concerned Revenue
Inspector but there is hardly any discussion
available in the order with regard to
fragmentation of the Khata No.203 wherein
the Plot No.117 has been divided into
several parts and specific 1173 measuring
0.39 decimal has been mentioned against
pond in the complete Plot No.117 which is
crystal clear from Akaar Patra 45 appended
along with the petition as Annexure-11 and
as such, the non availability of the
discussion of the fragmentation of Plot
No.117 which is reported by the concerned
Revenue Inspector also, the order dated
29.07.2017 is lacking on merits and the
same is liable to be quashed.

7. Having aggrieved by the order
dated 29.07.2017, the petitioner preferred a
revision
bearing
Computerized
Case
No.C20171500666
(Ripunjay
Rai
Vs.
Chandeshwar Rai) under Section 219 of
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. While
deciding the same as preferred by the
petitioner, the respondent no.2 vide order
dated 10.02.2021 determined that the Plot
No.117 is solely recorded against pond
which is contrary to the revenue record as
well as report submitted by the concerned
Revenue Inspector during the proceedings
initiated by the respondent no.3 under
Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act,
1901.

8. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel and learned counsel for the
respondent no.5 supported the orders dated
29.07.2017 and 10.02.2021 passed by the
respondent nos.3 and 2 respectively, with
regard to submission of the petitioner
which has been substantiated by the
revenue record as well as the report
submitted by the concerned Revenue
Inspector, the same has been admitted to
the extent with regard to the report
submitted by the concerned Revenue
Inspector but denying the stand of the
petitioner that the Plot No.117 is having cosharers and which has been fragmented
during the proceedings of consolidation.

9. The stand of learned counsel for the
respondent no.5 is not sustainable since the
report as submitted by the concerned
Revenue Inspector during the pendency of
the Case No.227 of 2015, under Section
33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 itself
reveals that the Plot No.117 which is
recorded as pond along with some other
sharers under the capacity of bhumidar
with transferable rights. The report is
perfectly matched with the Akaar Patra 45
as appended to the petition and the same
has been submitted before the respondent
no.3 while filing the objection preferred by
the petitioner.

10. It was justified action which ought
to be initiated by the respondent no.3 while
adjudicating the controversy under Section
33/39 by way of dealing the detailed
discussion and observations over the report
submitted by the concerned Revenue
Inspector as well as by giving thoughtful
consideration
over
the
previous
proceedings which have been initiated over
the Plot No.117 and the same is lacking in
the present order which impugned the
instant petition i.e. order dated 29.07.2017.
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Chandra Public School Vs. State
of U.P. and 3 others (Writ C No.14880 of
2015, decided on 02.08.2019) wherein the
impugned order was quashed on the ground
of non consideration of material placed
before
the
Authority.
The
relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:-

"As I have already discussed
hereinabove, in my considered opinion, the
principal order passed by the Tehsildar
under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act,
1950 cannot pass the test of Article 14 of
the Constitution whereunder whatever is
arbitrary is bad and in matters where
element of adjudication is involved, it
clearly requires not only due application of
mind to the objections filed by the person
aggrieved but also proper adjudication of
issues, the evaluation of the pleadings
raised and appreciation of material placed
before the Authority. Fair play requires
recording precise and cogent reasons when
an order affects right of a citizen [Punjab
State Electricity Board and others v. Jit
Singh (2009) 13 SCC 118]. All this is quite
wanting in the order impugned and,
therefore, the order dated 13th June, 2012
deserves to be set aside. "

11. In view of the aforesaid
discussions and arguments raised by
learned counsel for parties, the orders dated
29.07.2017 and 10.02.2021 passed by the
respondent nos.3 and 2 respectively are
hereby quashed. The matter is remanded
back to the respondent no.3 for deciding
afresh by way of giving proper findings
while adjudicating the same with regard to
Plot No.117 which has been reported by the
concerned Revenue Inspector as different
numbers as 117d, 117[k, 117x, 177/k,
117M. A fine consideration to the earlier
proceedings which have been initiated
during the proceedings of consolidation,
may also be given consideration at the time
of final adjudication of the proceedings
initiated in Case No.227 of 2015.

12. In view thereof, the petition stands
allowed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 904
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 2760 of 2006

M/s East India Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State Industrial Development Corp.
Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.H. Khan, Sri Sri W.H. Khan (Sn. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Swapnil Kumar, Sri Chandan Sharma,
Sri Deepak Kr. Jaiswal, Sri Dilip Srivastava,
Sri Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, S.C., Sri
S.P. Singh, Sri Swapnil Kumar, Sri Rahul
Agarwal

A. Civil Law - Allotment of industrial area
- Cancellation on the ground of failure in
deposit of reservation amount - Legality
challenged - No notice and opportunity of
hearing was given - Effect - Clause of
automatic cancellation, how far relevant -
Held, even if there is stipulation in
allotment letter for automatic cancellation
of allotment in case of non deposit of
reservation amount, even then, notice was
required before cancelling the allotment
of petitioner to provide him opportunity of
hearing, as non grant of opportunity of