Collector, Add'l Commissioner Not Expected To Blindly Follow Action Of Junior Staff Who Harass Common & Poor People: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that it is not expected from the officers like Collector and Additional Commissioner to blindly follow the action of junior staff who are there to harass the common and poor people of the State. The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwalobserved that the right which had accrued to the petitioner way back in the year 2007 (in connection with a...
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that it is not expected from the officers like Collector and Additional Commissioner to blindly follow the action of junior staff who are there to harass the common and poor people of the State.
The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwalobserved that the right which had accrued to the petitioner way back in the year 2007 (in connection with a piece of land) was withdrawn by one stroke of the pen by an officer.
Case in brief
A piece of land was purchased by the petitioner before the Court after the approval was granted by the Sub Divisional Officer in the year 2007 and thereafter, his name was mutated in the revenue records.
However, after a lapse of seven years, on an application of panel lawyer of Gaon Sabha, on December 18, 2014, the Naib Tehsildar proceeded to recall the order of mutation without issuing notice or affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Thereafter, the Collector, Muzaffarnagar on July 2, 2015 held that the petitioner had lost rights over the land and land was vested in the Gaon Sabha.
Against the said order, a revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur, on the ground that the order passed by Naib Tehsildar was an ex-parte order and the petitioner had purchased the land in dispute after approval granted by the revenue authorities.
However, the revisional court, while passing the order impugned, rejected the revision without considering the grounds so raised by the petitioner
The Collector, as well as Additional Commissioner, apparently did not consider the fact that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and further the said sale-deed was executed after the due permission accorded by concerned Sub Divisional Officer.
Court's observations
Stressing that such blind orders passed by the district authorities shake the conscious of the Court, the Court said:
"the action of these officers are creating harassment to the poor residents of the State, on one hand, the permission was granted by a district official and after a lapse of seven years the other official had withdrawn the permission without affording any opportunity to the concerned party."
The Court further observed that in the instant case, on application moved for recalling an order of the year 2007 on December 12, 2014, the same was withdrawn/recalled on December 19, 2014.
"The right which has accrued to the petitioner way back in the year 2007 was withdrawn by one stroke of pen by the said officer," added the Court.
Consequently, the orders passed by Additional Commissioner and the order passed by respondent no. 2 were quashed.
The matter was further remitted to the concerned Naib Tehsildar, with a direction to pass order afresh, in accordance with the law, after hearing all the parties concerned.
In the meantime, the Collector Muzaffarnagar has been directed to initiate the inquiry against the then Naib Tehsildar, who was responsible for such an act.
Case title - Rajpal v. Additional Commissioner And 6 Others
Read Order