Court No. - 19 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 3771 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Soorsati Devi Respondent :- Commissioner Faizabad Mandal Faizabad And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Suresh Chandra Shukla,K.K.Dewedi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C,R.N.Gupta Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.
Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Vimal
Shukla, learned Standing Counsel representing opposite parties nos.1 & 2, Sri
R. N. Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 and perused the record.
Under the circumstances, the issuance of notices to the opposite parties nos. 4
to 11 is dispensed with and the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the
admission stage with the consent of the parties.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari may
be issued quashing the impugned order dated 21.06.2010 passed in revision
no. 1183/Sultanpur under u/S U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act – Jagdish Prasad Vs.
Soorsati and others, passed by the opposite party no.1, contained as Annexure
No.1 to the writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Caveat was filed
on behalf of the petitioner, but without issuing any notice to the Caveator, the
revision was admitted, although it was not maintainable. He has further
submitted that the notice was ordered to be issued by the revisional Court and
05.07.2010 was fixed for hearing. On receiving information about filing of
revision, an application was moved on behalf of petitioner to recall the order
dated 09.06.2010 and for providing opportunity to file objections on the point
of admissibility of revision. On it, the hearing was pre-poned and the revision
was disposed of finally vide order dated 21.06.2010.His contention is that the
learned revisional Court committed illegality in admitting the revision without
providing opportunity of hearing to the Caveator and disposing of revision
finally prior to the date fixed for hearing.
I find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
opportunity of hearing should have been provided to the Caveator before
admitting the revision and the final hearing of the revision should not have
been pre-poned. Thus, the learned revisional Court has committed illegality in
exercise of its jurisdiction.
It is expedient in the interest of justice that the revision may be disposed of on
merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties
and the impugned order dated 21.06.2010 may be quashed.
The impugned order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner,
Faizabad Division, Faizabad is quashed. The revision no. 1183/Sultanpur
under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act – Jagdish Prasad Vs. Soorsati and
others is remanded to the Court concerned for disposal afresh. The concerned
Court is directed to dispose of the said revision on merits in accordance with
law, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of
finally.
Order Date :- 2.7.2010
psd