FAROOQ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anuj Kumar counsel appearing for the respondent and the learned Standing Counsel. A notice under Section 49A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was given to the petitioner on the ground that he is in occupation of Gaon Sabha land. The relevant authority vide its order dated 13.2.2009 on the basis of the statement of the Lekhpal as well as on the basis of the relevant record has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not occupied any Gaon Sabha land unauthorizedly, therefore, the notice was discharged. It appears that on an application made by the D.G.C. (Revenue) the order passed earlier was recalled on 19.3.2009. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the earlier order was passed on the basis of the statement of Lekhpal and on the basis of the relevant record but the subsequent order discharging the notice under Section 49A of the Act has been withdrawn without any notice and opportunity to the petitioner. A specific averment has been made in para 13 of the writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record and order dated 19.3.2009 it does not appear that the petitioner was ever issued any notice and was given any opportunity to be heard before recalling the earlier order dated 13.2.2009. It is well settled in law that the administrative authority as well as judicial authority are obliged to follow the principle of natural justice. If the principle of natural justice is not followed and opportunity of hearing has not been provided to an aggrieved person, the order can be set aside on this ground alone. In such circumstances, I am of opinion that inviting counter or rejoinder affidavits will be a frutile exercise in delaying the matter and keeping the present writ petition pending before this Court. Ultimate result after exchange of the counter and rejoinder affidavits will be the same as it is being today. In view of above, the order dated 19.3.2009, annexure- 3 to the writ petition, in my opinion, is liable to be quashed and the matter needs reconsideration by the authority concerned. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.3.2009 annexure no. 3 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to respondent no. 2 to decide the same on merits after affording fullest opportunity to the relevant authority within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before him by a speaking and reasoned order. No order is passed as to costs.