HANUMAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned and assailed in this writ petition is dated 29.10.2005, passed by Tahsildar Hathras District Judge Hathras in Case No. 1162 of 2005 instituted under Section 34/35 of the Land Revenue Act.

(2.) The starting point of the case was the application filed on 13.9.2005 before the Tahsildar by Opposite Party No. 2 for mutation of her name in place of Ghanshyam Das Poddar in the revenue record qua the property known as Jamuna Bagh situated in village Garhi Tamna District Hathras-founding her claim on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 7.2.1999, allegedly executed by Ghan Shyam Poddar. It would further appear that pursuant to the application for mutation, notices were issued fixing 17.10.20O5. Thereafter the case suffered adjournments on 18.11.2005, 28.11.2005, 8.12.2005, 11.12.2005, 28.12.2005, 6.1.2006, 16.1.2006, 21.1.2006, 2.2.2006, and 7.2.2006 and lastly the date fixed in the case is indicated to be 18.2.2006. As stated supra, since challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29.10.2005 which according to the petitioner has been filed behind his back without affording opportunity of hearing and against the norms and ethics of judicial discipline, I feel inclined to look into the justness and propriety of the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar.

(3.) From a close scrutiny of the order sheet of the case, it would appear that the case after being instituted on 7.10.2005 has suffered adjournments from 17.10.2005 to 7.2.2006 on grounds enumerated in the orders, i.e., due to strike of lawyers/condolence/absence of the Presiding Officers. It is evident from the order sheet that a stereotyped order has come to be scribed on each dates by using a rubber stamp mentioning all the three grounds in tandem and further, none of the orders bear signature of the Presiding Officer. It would further appear that the impugned order dated 29.10.2005 has been scribed by the Tahsildar on the application made by opposite party No. 2 while to the contrary, in the order sheet, the case has been stated to have been adjourned to 18.11.2005. The record further reveals that on 7.10.2005, which was the date fixed in mutation proceeding before the Tahsildar, the petitioner was present and had filed application attended with the prayer that opposite party No. 2 be directed to produce original Will as photo copy has been filed alongwith the case. It would also appear from the record that after gaining knowledge of the impugned order dated 29.10.2005, the petitioner filed application on 19.11.2005 for recall of the order passed ex parte but no orders having been passed thereon, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present petition.