The Allahabad High Court ruled that any alteration, removal, or substitution of entries in revenue records under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act must be treated as a judicial act, requiring that all affected parties be given an opportunity to be heard before such changes are made. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice demand that no order impacting an individual’s rights over property should be passed without affording them a fair hearing.
The case before the court concerned land that had been auctioned in 1961, with the sale confirmed in 1963. However, some portions of the land were submerged under a riverbed, and physical possession was not immediately handed over. In 1995, after the land re-emerged, a sale certificate was issued, and the petitioners’ names were duly recorded in the revenue documents following legal succession. Subsequently, the Tehsildar submitted a report casting doubt on the validity of the auction and recommended the issuance of a parwana amaldaramad to alter the records. Acting on this report, the authorities in August 1996 cancelled the entries in the revenue records without notifying or hearing the petitioners whose names were being removed.
The petitioners challenged the cancellation, arguing that it was carried out without notice and in violation of their right to be heard. The court found that neither the revenue authorities nor the revisional courts had made any clear finding declaring the auction invalid or identifying any fraudulent conduct. Furthermore, no attempt had been made to retrieve or verify the original auction files from the record room. Justice Irshad Ali observed that altering or cancelling entries in revenue records amounts to a judicial act and therefore mandates compliance with procedural fairness. He stressed that the right to be heard is an essential part of judicial proceedings and cannot be ignored.
The court noted that even if there were doubts about the authenticity of the auction or the legitimacy of the entries, the concerned authorities were still required to issue notice and allow the affected parties to present their case before making any changes. The lack of such a process rendered the orders of the lower authorities invalid.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the authorities to conduct a fresh hearing. It instructed them to call for the original auction records, review all relevant documents, and issue a reasoned decision only after giving all parties involved an adequate opportunity to be heard. The ruling reaffirmed that decisions affecting property rights must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice and cannot be made unilaterally by administrative authorities.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.