1952 (1) TMI 29 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate under the U.P. Land Utilization Act, 1948.
2. Validity of the notice served to the applicants.
3. Admissibility of evidence regarding service of notice.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate under the U.P. Land Utilization Act, 1948:
The applicants contended that the Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to allot the land under Section 3 of the U.P. Land Utilization Act, 1948, as the land was of a cultivated character in the Rabi and Kharif immediately preceding 28th January 1948. The court noted that the Act aimed to utilize uncultivated land to increase food production, granting the Collector vast powers. However, the court found that the Additional District Magistrate acted without jurisdiction because the applicants were not properly served with notice, which was a prerequisite for exercising such jurisdiction.

2. Validity of the notice served to the applicants:
The notice was allegedly served to the applicants, but they refused to endorse the acknowledgment. The court highlighted that the refusal to sign is not synonymous with the refusal to accept the notice. The process server's report indicated that the notice was thrown in the baithak or taken but not signed by the applicants. The court emphasized that proper service of notice was crucial before the Additional District Magistrate could proceed with the allotment.

3. Admissibility of evidence regarding service of notice:
The court found no admissible evidence supporting the claim that the notice was properly served. The process server's report was neither verified by him nor sworn to as correct, violating Rule 78 of the Revenue Court Manual and Order 5, Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court stated that the finding that the applicants were served with notice was based on inadmissible evidence, rendering the ex parte order invalid.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court asserted its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, stating that the power to issue writs, directions, or orders cannot be curtailed by any enactment of the Indian Parliament or State legislature. The court emphasized that this power is discretionary and must be guided by judicial considerations. The court decided to interfere with the Additional District Magistrate's order in the interest of justice, as the applicants were left without any remedy due to the improper service of notice.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the order of the learned Additional Collector dated 8th April 1950, allotting the land to the opposite-party No. 2, due to the lack of proper service of notice and the reliance on inadmissible evidence. The court made no order as to costs.