Removal/Substitution Of Entry In Records Under Land Revenue Act Is Judicial Matter, Opportunity Of Hearing Necessary: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that any change in the entry in revenue records, including removal or substitution under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act is a judicial matter for which opportunity of hearing must be provided to concerned parties.Justice Irshad Ali held,“Grant of opportunity of hearing in administrative matters is comparatively a recent doctrine. As far as judicial matters are concerned since the time when Courts were established it has been the most essential ingredient of procedural law that no order shall be passed without hearing parties concerned. Removal and substitution of entry in revenue records under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act or any other provision is a judicial matter making it all the more necessary to provide opportunity of hearing to the party concerned.”Due to certain default in payment of land revenue, the land in question was put up for auction in 1961, and the sale was confirmed in 1963. Certain part of the land was under the bed of river Sharda, therefore, possession was not given and sale certificate was not issued. In 1995, when the land reappeared then sale certificate was issued and the name was mutated in petitioners' names. Subsequently, the Tehsildar gave a report to U.P. Ziladhikari, Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri expressing doubts over the auction proceedings and suggested parwana amaldaramad (judicial order regarding change in revenue records) be cancelled. Vide order dated 16.8.1996, entries in revenue record were cancelled. Petitioner pleaded that all these actions were taken without consulting or giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who had succeeded their father. As soon as they came to know of the order, they filed a revision under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act which was allowed directing filing for restoration of the original case before the U.P. Ziladhikari/ Pargna Adhikari, Palia. Though the Pargna Adhikari called for the original records of the case, without waiting for the same, he dismissed the restoration application. Thereafter, petitioner again filed a revision which was dismissed without going into the merits of the case on grounds that there was delay in deciding the case. This order was challenged before the High Court. The Court observed that Rule 285-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 provides that every sale under Sections 284 and 286 shall be made either by the Collector in person or by an Assistant Collector specially appointed by him in this behalf and not on any Sunday or gazetted holiday. Relying on the judgment in Chaturgun and others v. State of U.P. and others, the Court observed that parties can sometimes show whether the entries in the revenue records are fake or real, therefore, they must be heard. “In the present case, none of the Courts Below have come to the categoric finding that the auction proceedings had not taken place, as such the sale certificate was wrongly issued. Rather they have expressed their suspicion on the ground that the auction proceedings had been held in the year 1961 and the sale certificate was issued in the year 1995 which cannot be a ground for its cancellation particularly in the circumstances when none of the Courts Below ever ordered production of file relating to the issue of sale certificate nor any report has been obtained from the record room or from the lower staff as to whether any such file was ever existed or not.”The Court held that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners by the Courts below. Holding that opportunity of hearing must be given in administrative matters affecting rights of persons, the Court held that no direction had been given by the revisional court. Further, it held that in case of suspected fake/ fraud, the concerned authority is bound to give notice to the person whose name has been substituted in the revenue record. Observing that no endeavour was made to call for the records of the auction proceedings, the Court held that order of the Courts below were liable to be set aside. Allowing the writ petitions, the Court directed that fresh hearing be given after calling for records of the auction proceedings. Case Title: Hanif Khan and others v. Additional Commissioner Lucknow and others. [WRIT-C No.1002036 of 2003]Click Here To Read/Download Order

Removal/Substitution Of Entry In Records Under Land Revenue Act Is Judicial Matter, Opportunity Of Hearing Necessary: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

Tags