PRAHLAD Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed quashing the order dated 7.11.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Officer in Case No. 4 of 2008 (contained as Annexure 6 to writ petition).

(2.) The facts arising out of present writ petition are that one Ram Kishun was the Bhumidhar of the plots who transferred the possession of the plots in favour of petitioner after receiving consideration, therefore, petitioner came into actual physical cultivatory possession over the plots in question. Petitioner matured his right by virtue of Section 164 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. Petitioner has submitted an application before the Collector on 14.3.2002 with a request for recording his name over the land in question. A report was called and Additional Collector after making spot inspection vide its order dated 23.3.2002 accepted the reference of petitioner and directed the Additional Collector, Chauri Chaura to record the name of petitioner over the land in dispute. Despite the aforesaid order, name of petitioner was not recorded over the land in question, therefore, petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 55169 of 2003 (Prahlad v. Collector, Gorakhpur and Ors.) which was finally disposed of on 15.12.2003 directing the Registrar Qanungo to implement the order dated 23.3.2002. An application was moved by petitioner before the Commissioner on 7.5.2004 appending the order dated 15.12.2003 passed by this Court and the Additional Collector has directed the tehsildar concerned to comply the said order. The name of petitioner was recorded and entry was also made in the Register Malikan. A questionnaire dated 25.6.2004 regarding entry made in register Malikan has been filed as Annexure 5 to writ petition.

(3.) A submission has been made that tehsildar concerned without initiating any proceeding an ex-parte report was submitted dated 3.11.2008 and Sub- Divisional Officer without issuing any notice and without providing any opportunity to petitioner has approved the report by a non-speaking order dated 7.11.2008. Further argument has been made that before passing the said order, no opportunity has been given. There is no provision under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or under U.P. Land Revenue Act, which empowers tehsildar or Sub-Divisional Officer to expunge the entry of petitioner over the land in question. From perusal of order, it appears that a non-speaking order has been passed which is not permissible under the law. While passing the order, respondent No. 2 has placed reliance upon an ex-parte report dated 3.11.2008 and therefore, the order impugned suffers from manifest error of law.