Allahabad High Court Questions Why Revenue Officer Prepared Two Contradictory Orders In Same Case, Suspects 'Something More Than Negligence'

The Allahabad High Court has held that where two mutually contradictory orders are passed on the same date in the same case, one in favour of the litigant and the other against him, the matter cannot be treated as one of negligence on the part of the officer who passed them. While dealing with two contradicting orders uploaded from the office of the Collector, Deoria, Justice Kshitij Shailendra held,“Even if unsigned order was uploaded on the requisite portal and, thereafter, the signed order was uploaded, the very fact that two orders operate exactly in contrast to each other i.e. one passed in favour of the litigant and the other against him, the matter is not of negligence on the part of the officer, rather it is clear case where two orders were prepared by the officer so as to advance favour to one party and disfavour to other. This very admitted fact of the case reflects that there is something more than a sheer negligence.”It held that the Bench Secretary or the Stenographer has no role in the contents of an order and cannot be fixed with responsibility for what the order decides.The petitioner, Shiv Narayan Tiwari, sought a writ of mandamus commanding the Collector, Deoria to inspect the file of a proceeding under Section 31/32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for correction of entries, in which two final orders were passed on 17.08.2023, and to take action against those responsible.Both orders were annexed to the petition, an unsigned copy obtained from the R.C.M.S. portal of the Board of Revenue, and a certified copy. By an earlier order, the Court recorded that the two were exactly in contrast to each other: one accepted the petitioner's claim and directed correction of entries, while the other dismissed his case on merits, recording that there was no justification to correct the entries.The stand of the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoria Sadar, Yogesh Kumar Gaur, was that the order which could not be signed had been uploaded on the website by mistake, was later deleted, and a different order of the same date was released.The Court had then noted that the inquiry set up by the district administration described only the Reader and the Revenue Ahalmad posted in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer as the culprits, with nothing to show that any inquiry had been set up against the officer himself. It directed the Collector to call for the officer's written defence and to forward an independent report to the Principal Secretary (Revenue), U.P. Government, who was to set up a high level inquiry.The inquiry report held the Bench Secretary guilty of uploading the unsigned order, and found the Sub-Divisional Officer negligent in not ensuring that the signed order was uploaded, recommending that proceedings be initiated against him.The Court observed that while the Bench Secretary or other staff might have uploaded an order without ensuring signatures on it, what the order contained was not theirs to decide.“The Court can understand that without ensuring signatures on a particular order, the Bench Secretary or other staff might have uploaded the order on the portal, however, neither the Bench Secretary nor the Stenographer has any role in contents of the order, i.e. to say as to whether the case has been allowed or dismissed, and their job is only to finalize what has been dictated by the officer concerned.”It held that how two orders in the same matter, one allowing the proceedings and the other dismissing them, came to be passed on the same date by the same officer had not been explained at all.“The Court records its serious displeasure and anguish in the manner in which the State Government has dealt with this matter.”Not satisfied with the inquiry report forming part of the counter affidavit, the Court directed the Principal Secretary (Revenue Department), Government of U.P. to file a personal affidavit annexing the departmental proceedings held so far, and making the stand of the Government clear in terms of its “ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY” against corruption. The case has been listed on 24.08.2026.Case Title: Shiv Narayan Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 7 othersCounsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjay Kumar Thakur, Mahendra Singh, Manoj Kumar Maurya, Rajesh Kumar DubeyCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C, Prashant Kumar TripathiClick Here To Read/Download Order

Allahabad High Court Questions Why Revenue Officer Prepared Two Contradictory Orders In Same Case, Suspects 'Something More Than Negligence'

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Allahabad High Court Questions Why Revenue Officer Prepared Two Contradictory Orders In Same Case, Suspects 'Something More Than Negligence'

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers