ABDURRAHAMA Vs. COLLETOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.1. Notice need not be issued to the Respondents No.2 to 6 in view of the order being passed herein. At the outset learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that against the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj in proceedings under Section 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the petitioners have got alternative statutory remedy and, therefore, this writ petition should not be entertained. To the preliminary objection raised by learned Standing Counsel, Sri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when there is total violation of principles of natural justice in passing an administrative order the Writ Court can interfere in such an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such there is no alternative statutory remedy available to him hence he would like to pursue this writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to Sri R.K. Gupta, there are various allegations of malafide made in paragraph 7 to 13 of the writ petition regarding relationship of the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, with a political person, who has been named in the aforesaid paragraph and the Respondents No.2 to 6 are the so called men of the politician and, therefore, under political pressure of the politician, who is alleged to be relative of the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 has been passed. As such, apart from being ex-parte against the petitioners, who are purchasers of the land from the Respondents No.2 to 6, the impugned order is malafide. Insofar as the above submission of learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of averments made in paragraph 7 to 13 are concerned, the law is settled that if malafide are alleged against a person that person must be made a party in the proceedings so that he can have an opportunity of defence and his say before the Court. When malafide is a ground taken in the writ petition and such person against whom malafide is alleged have not been made party, this Court will not pass any order on that basis behind the back of such person as such the writ petition on the ground of malafide cannot be entertained since the persons against whom malafide has been alleged have not been made a party. In this case malafide is alleged against a politician named in the writ petition as also the District Magistrate, Maharajganj. Neither the politician has been made a party in this writ petition nor the District Magistrate/Collector has been made a party in person, therefore, the writ petition on that ground cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) INSOFAR as the other order assailed in this writ petition being the order dated 30.08.2012 is concerned, it has been passed on restoration application filed by the petitioners which restoration application has been dismissed for the reason that the earlier order dated 06.10.2010 was an administrative order and no restoration application can be maintained there against. No error can be found in the order dated 30.08.2012. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.