Allahabad HC Quashes Ex-Parte Revenue Orders That Tried to Convert School Land Into a Pond
Justice Prakash Padia quashed three administrative orders passed against Sunbeam School, Varanasi, finding them ex-parte, without jurisdiction, and tainted by mala fides of the district administration.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a common judgment delivered on 3 July 2026, allowed two writ petitions filed by Sunbeam School, Varanasi, and quashed three revenue orders passed in December 2012. Justice Prakash Padia, sitting singly at Court No. 5, found that the orders — which had the combined effect of nullifying a 1988 appellate decree, cancelling a 2002 declaration of the land as Abadi, and reclassifying the school plots as a pond — were passed ex-parte, without any notice to the affected parties, and were beyond the jurisdiction of the officers who passed them. The judgment spans the title and possession history of three plots in Village Lahartara, Tehsil Sadar, Varanasi, and rests squarely on the principles of natural justice and jurisdictional competence.
The Dispute Before the Court
Sunbeam School is an educational institution running up to Intermediate level on Plot Nos. 145, 146, and 148 (also referenced as 145/1(M), 146/1(M), and 148/1(M)) in Village Lahartara, Post Dehat Amanat, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi. The school's claim to the land traces back to its lessor, Smt. Dhiraji Devi.
The root of title lies in Suit No. 417 of 1979 filed under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act 1950). The Additional Sub Divisional Officer, Varanasi, decreed the suit on 31 January 1986, declaring Smt. Lalo Devi and Smt. Dhiraji Devi as co-owners with half share each. Dhiraji Devi challenged the part that limited her share. The Additional Commissioner (Administration), Varanasi Division, allowed her appeal on 23 April 1988 and held her to be the absolute owner with title and possession. A second appeal filed by the heirs of Lalo Devi before the Board of Revenue was dismissed on 8 August 1996 on the appellant's own application.
Following that final decree, Dhiraji Devi's name was mutated in revenue records through a Parwana Amaldaramad dated 13 April 1989. In 2002, she initiated proceedings under Section 143 of Act 1950 to declare the land as Abadi. The Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Sadar, Varanasi declared the land as Abadi Class VI(2) on 10 July 2002 after inquiry through the Tehsildar and Regional Revenue Inspector. Nagar Nigam, Varanasi issued a No Objection Certificate on 5 January 2002 stating the plots were not Nagar Nigam Nazul property. Dhiraji Devi executed a registered lease deed dated 11 July 2002 in favour of the school. The Varanasi Development Authority sanctioned the construction map and granted permission to build, vide order dated 16 August 2002. The school was thereafter constructed and has been in operation.
The Three Impugned Orders of December 2012
In late 2012, two sets of proceedings were initiated against the school's land. The first arose from an application dated 10 December 2012 filed by one Rakesh (Nyayik), described as respondent no. 4, before the IIIrd Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi. On that application, the Additional City Magistrate passed an order on 15 December 2012 — within five days of the application — recalling the Parwana Amaldaramad dated 13 April 1989 and, in effect, undoing the mutation made pursuant to the 1988 decree. No notice was issued to Dhiraji Devi, Lalo Devi, Rai Satyabrat Saheb, or any original party to the suit. This order was challenged in Writ-C No. 857 of 2013.
The second set arose from proceedings initiated suo motu before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Varanasi. A notice dated 22 February 2010 had been issued to Dhiraji Devi, but by March 2010 the process server reported that she had already expired. Despite no heirs being traced or notified, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 21 November 2012 recalling the 2002 Abadi declaration under Section 143 of Act 1950. A further order dated 20 December 2012 was passed under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, directing that the land be recorded as a “Pond” and entries made in the revenue records accordingly. Neither the school nor its lessor's heirs were heard. These two orders were challenged in Writ-C No. 858 of 2013.
The petitioner alleged that all three orders were the product of mala fides orchestrated by the Divisional Commissioner, Varanasi, whom the school's Director was actively exposing in a pending public interest litigation (PIL No. 48104 of 2012, Alpna Roy Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and others). The FIR (Case Crime No. 780 of 2012) registered against the school's Chairman on 6 December 2012 also came up; the final report in that case was submitted on 23 December 2015 and accepted, with the record consigned to the record room by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi on 28 September 2021. Respondent no. 4 himself, in an affidavit dated 12 November 2020 filed in Criminal Case No. 2545 of 2020, stated that he had been set up by the district administration.
Legal Issues Addressed
Both writ petitions raised a common core question: can an administrative officer, acting in an administrative capacity, set aside or recall a subsisting judicial or quasi-judicial order without notice to affected parties? Beyond that, Writ-C No. 858 of 2013 raised an additional question about the character of the land — whether it could be treated as a public pond at all.
On jurisdiction: the petitioner argued that the Parwana Amaldaramad was issued in execution of the 1988 appellate decree, which itself had attained finality after the Board of Revenue dismissed the second appeal in 1996. An administrative officer has no power to sit in judgment over a decree of a competent appellate forum. The Additional City Magistrate neither exercises public interest litigation powers nor has any revisional or appellate authority over decrees passed under Section 229-B of Act 1950.
On natural justice: the applications were filed by a stranger to the original proceedings; no notice was issued to any person recorded in the revenue records or any party to the original suit; and the orders were passed within days. This violated the principle that a person whose rights are affected must be heard before an adverse order is passed.
On the pond classification: the petitioner contended that the land was recorded as Sir and Sir Malikan in Khatauni 1359 Fasli, indicating it was under private cultivation and had vested in the tenure holder under Section 18 of Act 1950. Judicial directions regarding restoration of pond land applied only to public land recorded as ponds, not to private land. No application for correction of records had been filed by any person, rendering the Section 33/39 proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act themselves without jurisdiction.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Padia began by noting that the respondent-authorities themselves did not dispute that the impugned orders had the effect of setting aside judicial and quasi-judicial orders through administrative action and that no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was given to recorded or affected persons.
On the 1988 decree, the court found it still intact — no competent court had ever set it aside. The IIIrd Additional City Magistrate, by recalling the Parwana Amaldaramad, had in substance nullified the decree without having any such power. The court held this to be impermissible and without jurisdiction. The Nagar Nigam's own NOC of 5 January 2002, never questioned or withdrawn, estopped it from taking a contrary stand. The Municipal Commissioner, Sri Himanshu Nagpal, who addressed the court on 30 April 2026 after Nagar Nigam was impleaded as a proposed respondent in May 2025, could not dispute that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte in an administrative manner.
On mala fides, the court found the petitioner's case fortified by respondent no. 4's own admission in his affidavit dated 12 November 2020 that he had been set up by the district administration. The conclusion drawn in the order dated 15 December 2012 — that the 1988 decree was obtained on a false affidavit — was reached without any material on record and was held to be perverse.
On the Abadi and pond question in Writ-C No. 858 of 2013, the court noted that the Khatauni 1359 Fasli, which itself formed the basis for the SDM's order dated 21 November 2012, showed the land as Sir and the Khasra showed it as Sir Malikan. The land remained in private cultivation and never vested in the State Government. It had stood settled under Section 18 of Act 1950. The court accepted the proposition that Supreme Court and High Court directions on restoration of pond land do not extend to private land or private ponds.
The court also held that long-standing revenue entries cannot be disturbed in summary proceedings. The Section 33/39 proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act were without jurisdiction because no application for correction of records had been filed by any person. Even if those provisions had been invoked properly, the officer was required to hear the parties and decide on the basis of possession — which was not done.
The court observed that after the 2002 Abadi declaration, the land was exempted from Chapter VIII of Act 1950, and valid rights were created in favour of the petitioner by the registered lease deed of 11 July 2002. A school with large constructions and a significant student body was in existence on the land. Changing the revenue entry from Abadi to pond — without hearing the petitioner — could not be sustained.
Order
In Writ-C No. 857 of 2013, the court quashed the entire proceedings including the impugned order dated 15 December 2012 passed by the IIIrd Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi. The respondents were restrained from causing any interference in the running of the school situated on Plot Nos. 145M, 146, and 148 in Village Lahartara, Post Dehat Amanat, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi. The writ petition was allowed.
In Writ-C No. 858 of 2013, consequent on the quashing in the first writ petition, the court quashed the ex-parte order dated 20 December 2012 and the ex-parte order dated 21 November 2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), Varanasi. The respondents were similarly restrained from causing any interference in the running of the school on Plot Nos. 145/1(M), 146/1(M), and 148/1(M) in Village Lahartara. This writ petition was also allowed.
Both writ petitions had been filed in 2013 and remained stayed throughout their pendency; the common judgment was reserved on 12 June 2026 and pronounced on 3 July 2026.