# Smt. Maya Devi v. Collector Sitapur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 841
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-16
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1002280 of 2021
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-maya-devi-v-collector-sitapur-ors-53780
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Whether cancellation of lease under Section
198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 could
be sustained when passed without serving
mandatory notice and beyond the statutory
limitation period?
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HEADNOTE
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,
1950 - Section 198(4), 198(5) & 198(6) -
Mandatory show-cause notice - Limitation -
Principles
of
natural
justice
-
Earlier
proceedings under Section 202 attained finality
- Order passed ex parte without jurisdiction -
Not sustainable
Held: Prior to cancellation of allotment of lease,
the person adversely affected is entitled to be
issued a show cause notice as provided under
Section 198(5) of the Act. Beyond the period of
limitation, no notice can be issued under Section
198(4) of the Act. In case there is a specific
averment regarding violation of show cause
notice, the statement of fact is treated to be
true. In the present case, the lease was granted
to the petitioner's father in 1960. A regular suit
under Section 202 was filed which was
dismissed on 12.05.1988 which attained finality.
Initiation of proceedings under Section 198(4)
after more than four decades, without issuance
of mandatory notice and beyond limitation, is in
clear violation of the principles of natural justice
and therefore stands vitiated. In absence of any
counter affidavit, the unrebutted pleadings are
deemed to be admitted. The impugned order
has been passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice and beyond the time limit
prescribed under law; therefore, the impugned
order dated 27.04.2001 is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. Writ
petition allowed. [Paras 19-21] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Suresh Giri and Others v. Board of Revenue,
U.P., Allahabad and Others, Writ-B No. 4570 of
2010
Jiya Ram and Others v. State of U.P. and
Others, (2012) 115 RD 372
Sambhunath Rai v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and
Others, Writ-B No. 10829 of 1984 (decided on
15.11.2022)
Assistant
Commissioner
of
State
Tax
v.
Commercial Steel Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 447

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,
1950;
Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Section 198(4) cancellation; Limitation under
Section 198(6); Principles of natural justice; Ex
parte proceedings; Non-traverse

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 27.04.2001 passed by Collector,
Sitapur in Case No. 34 under Section 198(4) of
the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: P.N. Dwivedi, Rama Pati
Shukla, Shravan Kumar
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; G.P. Pandey;
R.N. Gupta

## Text

9 All. Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Collector Sitapur & Ors.
841
property was sold to his client free from all
encumbrances known to his vendor.

6. There is substance in contention of
the supply company made upon reliance on
clause 4.3 (f) (i) and (viii). Petitioner is
auction-purchaser of a property dealt with
under law as being secured property of a
borrower, who had defaulted on repayment.
As such the property was sold on "as- iswhere-is" basis. To petitioner attaches the
requirement of the phrase 'buyer beware'.
Petitioner having bid for such a property, in
auction conducted by or on behalf of the
bank, ought to have made such enquiry
regarding charge of unpaid electricity dues
attaching to the property, by operation of
law. His contention that the authorized
officer, his vendor, had not consumed
electricity must be seen as cannot be
sustained by reason of declaration of law
made by the Supreme Court in K.C. Ninan
(supra) in fact situation covering petitioner.
Paragraph
1
from
the
judgment
is
reproduced below.

"1. The nineteen cases in this
batch of appeals follow a similar pattern of
facts. The supply of electricity was
discontinued due to the failure of the
previous owners to pay the dues for
consumption
of
electricity
on
the
premises.
The
previous
owners
had
borrowed money or raised loans on the
security of their premises. In some cases,
the erstwhile owner went into liquidation.
The premises were sold in auction-sales
generally on an "as-is-where-is" basis.
The new owners, who purchased the
properties in auction, applied for new
electricity connections for the premises to
which electricity had been disconnected
for failure to pay the dues. The Electric
Utilities refused to provide an electricity
connection unless the auction-purchaser
paid the dues of the previous owner. This
refusal was derived from powers conferred
under
subordinate
legislations,
notifications, Electricity Supply Codes or
State Regulations. The denial of electricity
supply resulted in the institution of
petitions under Article 226 before the
High Court, leading to the judgments
which are in appeal."

(emphasis supplied)

7. Petitioner is required under law to
comply with, inter alia, aforesaid provision
in
clause
4.3,
to
obtain
electricity
connection
in
the
property
he
has
purchased.

8. The writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 841
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1002280 of 2021

Smt. Maya Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Collector Sitapur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
P.N. Dwivedi, Rama Pati Shukla, Shravan
Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C., G.P. Pandey, R.N. Gupta

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether cancellation of lease under Section
198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 could
be sustained when passed without serving
mandatory notice and beyond the statutory
limitation period?
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HEADNOTE
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,
1950 - Section 198(4), 198(5) & 198(6) -
Mandatory show-cause notice - Limitation -
Principles
of
natural
justice
-
Earlier
proceedings under Section 202 attained finality
- Order passed ex parte without jurisdiction -
Not sustainable
Held: Prior to cancellation of allotment of lease,
the person adversely affected is entitled to be
issued a show cause notice as provided under
Section 198(5) of the Act. Beyond the period of
limitation, no notice can be issued under Section
198(4) of the Act. In case there is a specific
averment regarding violation of show cause
notice, the statement of fact is treated to be
true. In the present case, the lease was granted
to the petitioner's father in 1960. A regular suit
under Section 202 was filed which was
dismissed on 12.05.1988 which attained finality.
Initiation of proceedings under Section 198(4)
after more than four decades, without issuance
of mandatory notice and beyond limitation, is in
clear violation of the principles of natural justice
and therefore stands vitiated. In absence of any
counter affidavit, the unrebutted pleadings are
deemed to be admitted. The impugned order
has been passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice and beyond the time limit
prescribed under law; therefore, the impugned
order dated 27.04.2001 is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. Writ
petition allowed. [Paras 19-21] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Suresh Giri and Others v. Board of Revenue,
U.P., Allahabad and Others, Writ-B No. 4570 of
2010
Jiya Ram and Others v. State of U.P. and
Others, (2012) 115 RD 372
Sambhunath Rai v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and
Others, Writ-B No. 10829 of 1984 (decided on
15.11.2022)
Assistant
Commissioner
of
State
Tax
v.
Commercial Steel Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 447

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,
1950;
Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Section 198(4) cancellation; Limitation under
Section 198(6); Principles of natural justice; Ex
parte proceedings; Non-traverse

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 27.04.2001 passed by Collector,
Sitapur in Case No. 34 under Section 198(4) of
the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: P.N. Dwivedi, Rama Pati
Shukla, Shravan Kumar
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; G.P. Pandey;
R.N. Gupta

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

1. Heard Sri R.P. Shukla, learned
counsel
for
petitioner
and
learned
Additional CSC for the respondent - State.

2. Notice was issued to respondent -
gaon sabha but no one appears and notice
has been found deemed to be sufficient.

3. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner has assailed the order dated
27.04.2001 passed by Collector, Sitapur in
case No.34 under Section 198 (4) UPZA &
LR Act, 1950.

3. Respondent Nos.2 to 9 instituted
case No.34; Hiralal vs. Smt. Maya Devi
and other before the Collector, Sitapur
under Section 198 (4) of 1950 Act for
cancelling the lease granted in favour of the
petitioner in respect of gata No.293 area
1.60 dismal situated in village Gyan sagar,
H/o Mishrikh Rural, Pargana and Tehsil
Mishrikh District Sitapur.

4. The Collector, Sitapur called for the
report from the District Government
Counsel (DGC) Revenue, who submitted
his report dated 18.04.2001 mentioning
therein that the case should be filed under
Section 202 of the Act, 1950 and the suit
9 All. Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Collector Sitapur & Ors.
843
under Section 198 (4) of the Act, 1950 was
not maintainable.

5. The Collector proceeded in ex parte
manner under Section 198 (4) of the Act
without issuing notices to the petitioner.
The patta / lease was granted in favour of
Late Kalyan, father of the petitioner on
09.12.1960. The petitioner is only issue of
Late Kalyan, therefore, she succeeded on
the land and her name was recorded in the
revenue records. Late Kalyan has paid land
revenue in his lifetime and after his death,
the petitioner being successor / heir / legal
representative is entitled to be heard before
passing the order under Section 198 (4) of
the Act, 1950. The provisions of Section
198 (4) of the Act, 1950 are mandatory and
show cause notice is necessary to be served
in the instant case.

6. The then Gram Pradhan Sri Putan
Singh instituted a suit No.2/3/4/5 under
Section 202 of the Act of 1950 for
eviction of the petitioner from the land in
dispute before the Sub Divisional Officer
/ Deputy Collector, Mishrikh, District
Sitapur. The notices were issued to the
petitioner by the SDO and the petitioner
appeared and filed written statement. The
parties adduced their evidence and the
suit was rejected vide judgment and order
dated 12.05.1988 by the SDO vide order
dated 12.05.1988.

7. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the Gram Pradhan or
any person of the village has not assailed
the order dated 12.05.1988 before any
competent authority. Consequently, the
order has become final and the issue cannot
be re-agitated that too after lapse of more
than 40 years. Hence, the proceedings
under Section 198 (4) of the Act of 1950
were not maintainable.

8. He next submitted that the lease was
granted to petitioner's father Late Kalyan
was tested in the above said suit instituted
under Section 202 of the Act of 1950 and it
was found that he was quite eligible to get
the lease. The question of eligibility cannot
be tested after the lapse of more than 40
years.

9.
He
next
submitted
that
the
proceedings under Section 202 of the Act
are regular proceedings, hence it has
binding
effect
upon
the
proceedings
instituted under Section 198(4) of the Act
of 1950 and the impugned order dated
27.04.2001 passed by the Collector is
illegal.

10. He next submitted that the gram
sabha of the State of U.P. has filed no
counter affidavit rebutting the averments
made in the writ petition. The principle of
non traverse shall be applicable and the
averments made in the writ petition shall be
deemed to be true.

11. His last submission is that the
application beyond the limitation provided
under Section 198 (6) of the Act of 1950
cannot be instituted under Section 198 (4)
of the Act of 1950. In support of his
submissions, he placed reliance upon a
judgment in the case of Suresh Giri and
ors.
Vs.
Board
of
Revenue,
U.P.
Allahabad and ors.; Writ B No.4570 of
2010. The principles laid down by this
Court in the case of Suresh Giri (Supra),
has been relied upon in the case of
Jiyaram and ors. Vs. The State of U.P.
and Ors.; (2012) 115 RD 372. The
judgment has further been relied upon in
the case of Shabhunath Rai Vs. Board of
Revenue, U.P. and ors. This Court has
further been pleased to hold that the
proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act of 1950 cannot be instituted beyond the
limitation.

12. The provisions of Section 198 (4)
of the Act of 1950 are mandatory and show
cause notice is necessary to be served but
in the instant case specific averment has
been made in paragraph 4 of the writ
petition, which has not been denied by
filing counter affidavit. Section 198 (5) of
the Act of 1950 shall not be applicable in
the instant case for the reason that no case
was pending against the petitioner on
18.08.1980 before any court or authority.
Hence, it was necessary to serve show
cause notice before passing the impugned
order.

13. It is also mandatory that show
cause notice under Section 198(5) of the
Act of 1950 may be issued within 7 days
from the date of allotment was made. Lease
to late Kalyan was granted on 09.12.1960,
therefore, the show cause notice must have
been issued within seven days, hence, the
impugned order dated 27.04.2001 is illegal,
arbitrary and having been passed without
complying the principles of natural justice.

14. A query was made to learned
counsel for the petitioner that against the
order passed under Section 198 (4) on
27.04.2001, there is alternative remedy to
approach Board of Revenue. On the query,
learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance upon a judgment in the case of
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and
others Vs. Commercial Steel Limited;
(2022) 16 SCC 447, wherein it was held as
under:

"10.
The
respondent
had
a
statutory remedy under Section 107. Instead
of availing of the remedy, the respondent
instituted a petition under Article 226. The
existence of an alternative remedy is not an
absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
But a writ petition can be entertained in
exceptional circumstances where there is:

(i) a breach of fundamental rights;

(ii) a violation of the principles of
natural justice;

(iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or

(iv) a challenge to the vires of the
statute or delegated legislation."

He again placed reliance upon a
judgment in the case of Suresh Giri (Supra),
wherein it has been held as under:

"The
Collector
is
empowered
under Section 198 (4) of the Act of his own
motion or on the application of any person
aggrieved to cancel the allotment of the Gaon
Sabha land made in favour of any person as
well as the lease, if any, if he is satisfied that
the allotment made is irregular. The power of
cancellation of allotment of land so made
cannot obviously be exercised in violation of
the principles of natural justice and it is
imperative to provide an opportunity of
hearing to the person concerned i.e. the
allottee of the land before passing an order of
cancellation. It is with this view that section
198 (5) of the Act specifically provides for
issuing / sending a show cause notice upon
the person concerned before passing an
order of cancellation of allotment or lease."

Further reliance has been placed in the
case of Jiya Ram & 16 others Vs. State of
U.P. and others; (2012) 115 RD 372.
Relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced below:

"Specific plea of limitation was
raised before the Collector in terms of
Section 198(6) of the Act in which it was
specifically stated that no proceedings can
be initiated under Section 198(4) of the Act
9 All. Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Collector Sitapur & Ors.
845
beyond November 1987. Addl. Collector
has not addressed himself on this issue and
has cancelled the allotment only on the
ground that there is no prior approval in
favour of the petitioners. By analysing the
import of the judgment, it be seen that the
Collector has misdirected itself in not
addressing the issue of limitation."

Further reliance has been placed in the
case of Sambhunath Rai Vs. Board of
Revenue; Writ B No.10829 of 1984
decided on 15.11.2022. Relevant portion of
the judgment is as under:

"10. Since the petitioner was
granted patta in the year 1966 and have
matured their right in respect to plot in
dispute, as such, fresh consideration of
patta cancellation application after expiry
of more than 56 years, will ab an abuse of
process of law.

12.
This
writ
petition
was
entertained in the year 1984 and the
operation of the order passed by the Board
of Revenue was stayed but no counter
affidavit has been filed by the State or the
Gaon Sabha till date, as such, there is no
option except to accept the averment made
in the writ petition."

15. On perusal of instant paragraph, it
is evident that alternative remedy is no bar
where there is violation of principles of
natural justice.

16. On the other hand, learned
Additional CSC without filing counter
affidavit
vehemently
opposed
the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner and submitted that the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner
under Section 198 (4) is without lease and
pond has been leased out, which is not
proper in the eyes of law in view of
judgment in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari.

17. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material on record as well
as law reports cited by learned counsel for
the petitioner.

18. For deciding the controversy
involved in the matter, relevant portion of
Section 198 (4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is
being quoted below:

"198. Order of preference in
admitting persons to land under Sections
195 and 197.

(1) In the admission of persons to
land as [bhumidhar with non-transferable
rights] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 8 of
1977 (w.e.f. 28.01.1977).] or asami under
Section 195 or Section 197 (hereinafter in
this section referred to as allotment of
land) the Land Management Committee
shall, subject to any order made by a Court
under Section 178 observe the following
order of preference :

(a)
landless
widow,
sons,
unmarried daughters or parents residing in
the circle of a person who has lost his life
by enemy action while in active service in
the Armed Forces of the Union;

(b) a person residing in the
circle, who has become wholly disabled by
enemy action while in active service in the
Armed Forces of the Union;

(c)
a
landless
agricultural
labourer residing in the circle and
belonging to any one of the following
categories in the order of preference:-

(i) persons belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes;

(ii) persons belonging to Other
Backward Classes;
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii) persons belonging to the
general category living below poverty
line.];

(d)
any
other
landless
agricultural labourer residing in the circle;

(e) a bhumidhar [* * *] [Word
'sirdar' omitted by U.P. Act No. 6 of 1978
(w.e.f 2101.1978).] or asami residing in the
circle and holding land less than 1.26
hectares (3.125 acres);

(f) a landless person residing in
the circle who is retired, released or
discharged from service other than service
as an officer in the Armed Forces of the
Union;

(g) a landless freedom fighter
residing in the circle who has not been
granted political pension; and

(h)
any
other
landless
agricultural labourer, not residing in the
circle, but residing in the Nyaya Panchayat
circle referred to in Section 42 of the
United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947
and belonging to any of the following
categories in the order of preference:-

(i) persons belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes;

(ii) persons belonging to Other
Backward Classes;

(iii) persons belonging to the
general category living below poverty
line.]

Explanation. - For the purposes
of this sub-section-

(1) 'landless' refers to a person
who or whose spouse or minor children
hold no land as bhumidhar, [* * *]
[Omitted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977 (w.e.f.
28.01.1977).] or asami and [* * *]
[Omitted by U.P. Act No. 30 of 1975.] also
held no land as such within two years
immediately
preceding
the
date
of
allotment; and

(2) agricultural labourer' means
a person whose main source of livelihood is
agricultural labour;

(3) 'Freedom-Fighter' means an
inhabitant of Uttar Pradesh who is certified
by the Collector to have participated in the
National struggle for freedom during the
period between 1930 and 1947 and who in
connection with such participation, is
similarly certified to have-

(a) undergone a sentence*of
imprisonment for a period of at least two
months; or

(b) been in jail for a period of at
least three months by way of preventive
detention or as an undertrial; or

(c) been subjected to at least ten
stripes in execution of a sentence of
whipping; or

(d) been declared an absconding
offender; or

(e) suffered a bullet injury;

and includes a person who was
involved in the Peshawar-Khand or who
was a recognised member of the Indian
National
Army
or
former
India
Independence League; but does not include
a person who was granted pardon on
account of his tendering apology or
expressing regret for such participation.

(4) Other Backward Classes'
means the Backward Classes of citizens
specified in Schedule I of the Uttar Pradesh
Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled
Castes,
Scheduled Tribes
and Other
Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (U.P. Act No.
4 of 1994).

(5) 'Persons of General Category
living below poverty line' means such
persons as may be determined from time to
time by the State Government.]

(2) [ * * *]

(3) [The land that may be allotted
under sub-section (1) shall not exceed-
9 All. Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Collector Sitapur & Ors.
847

(i) in the case of a person falling
under Clause (e) such area as together with
the land held by him as bhumidhar [* * *]
or asami immediately before the allotment
would aggregate to 1.26 hectares (3.125
acres);(ii) in any other case, an area of
1.26 hectares (3.125 acres)].(4) The
[Collector] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 20
of 1982 (w.e.f. 18.08.1980).] may of his
own motion and shall on the application of
any person aggrieved by an allotment of
land inquire in the manner prescribed into
such allotment and if he is satisfied that the
allotment is irregular, he may cancel the
allotment and the lease, if any

[(4-A) [* * *]

(5) No order for cancellation of
an allotment or lease shall be made under
sub-section (4), unless a notice to show
cause is served on the person in whose
favour the allotment or lease was made or
on his legal representatives :

Provided that no such notice
shall be necessary in proceedings for the
cancellation of any allotment or lease
where such proceedings were pending
before the Collector or any other Court or
authority on August 18, 1980.

(6) Every notice to show' cause
mentioned in sub-section (5) may be
issued-

(a) in the case of an allotment of
land made before November 10, 1980,
(hereinafter referred to as the said date),
before the expiry of a period of [seven
years] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 24 of
1986 and shall be deemed always to have
been substituted.] from the said date; and

(b) in the case of an allotment of
land made on or after the said date, before
the expiry of a period of [five years from
the date of such allotment or lease or up to
November 10, 1987, which ever be later]

(7) Where the allotment or lease
of any land is cancelled under sub-section
(4) the following consequences shall ensue,
namely-

(i) the right, title and interest of
the allottee or lessee or any other person
claiming through him in such land shall
case and the land shall revert to the Gaon
Sabha;

(ii) the [Collector] [Substituted
by U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004 (w.e.f.
23.08.2004).] may direct delivery of
possession of such land forthwith to the
Gaon Sabha after ejectment of every
person holding or retaining possession
thereof and may for that purpose use or
cause to be used such force as may be
necessary.

(8) Every order made by the
Collector under sub-section (4) shall,
subject to the provisions of Section 333, be
final.]

(9) Where any person has been
admitted to any land specified in Section
132 as a sirdar or bhumidhar with nontransferable rights at any time before the
said date and such admission was made
with the previous approval of the Assistant
Collector-in-charge of the sub-division in
respect of the permissible area mentioned
in sub-section (3), then notwithstanding
anything contained in other provisions of
this Act or in the terms and conditions of
the allotment or lease under which such
person was admitted to that land, the
following consequences shall, with effect
from the said date ensure, namely-

(a) the allottee or lessee shall be
deemed to be an asami of such land and
shall be deemed to be holding the same
from year to year and the allotment or
lease of the land to the extent mentioned
above shall not be deemed to be irregular
for the purposes of sub-section (4);

(b) the proceedings, if any,
pending on the said date before the
Collector or any other Court or authority
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the cancellation of the allotment or
lease of such land, shall abate.]"

19. On perusal of aforesaid provision,
it is evident that show cause notice prior to
passing of the order is necessary to be
given within a week to the aggrieved
person and non providing of opportunity of
hearing vitiates the order passed under
Section 198 (4) of the Act.

20. As per judgment in the case of
Suresh Giri (Supra), it has been held that
prior to cancellation of allotment of lease,
the person adversely affected is entitled to
issue show cause notice as provided under
Section 198 (5) of the Act. In the case of
Jiya Ram & 16 others (Supra), it has
been held that beyond time of limitation no
notice can be issued under Section 198(4)
of the Act. In the case of Sambhunath Rai
(Supra), it has been held that in case there
is specific averment of violation of show
cause notice, statement of fact is treated to
be true.

21. In view of facts and circumstances
narrated above, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned order has been
passed in violation of principles of natural
justice and beyond time limit prescribed
under law, therefore, the impugned order
dated 27.04.2001 is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

22. Accordingly, the order dated
27.04.2001 is hereby quashed.

23. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 848
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1003912 of 2005

Jhinku ...Petitioner
Versus
Apar Ayuktprashashan Faizabad Mandal &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
R.P.
Maurya,
Mukul
Misra,
Ninnie
Shrivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C., Azad Khan, R.N. Gupta

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the orders passed by the revenue
authorities
rejecting
the
petitioner's
application for correction of the map of
Gata No. 471 were vitiated on account of
non-consideration of the Naib Tehsildar's
spot inspection report dated 18.08.1991 ?

HEADNOTE
Correction of map - U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 - S. 28 - Report of Naib Tehsildar after
spot inspection - Mandatory consideration of
material evidence - Revenue authorities noticed
the report but failed to consider it or return any
finding thereon - Non-application of mind -
Orders vitiated - Impugned orders quashed -
Writ petition allowed. (Paras 31-46)

HELD
An application was moved by the petitioner for
correction of the map in accordance with the
Khatauni. The Naib Tehsildar conducted a spot
inspection and submitted a report dated
18.08.1991. Though the said report was noticed
by respondent no. 2, no finding was returned
thereon and the petitioner's application was
rejected. Non-consideration of relevant and
material evidence vitiates both the original and
the revisional orders. The impugned orders were
quashed
and
the
writ
petition
was
allowed.(Paras 3,9) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED