IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 149 of 2007 Date of Decision : 14.12.2009 Radhapad ……… Appellant Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others ……… Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Present: Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent No.5. J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) Through the instant special appeal, the appellant has assailed the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 16.10.2006, whereby Writ Petition No.1026 (M/S) of 2001 was allowed. The appellant herein was impleaded as party respondent No.5 in the aforesaid writ petition. 2. Respondent No.5 in the instant appeal, had filed Writ Petition No. 1026 (M/S) of 2001, assailing the orders passed on 22.03.1999 and 29.01.2000, whereby the name of the appellant herein was depicted as a co-tenure holder in the revenue record. It is not a matter of dispute, that as a consequence of the impugned orders, the name of the appellant herein was recorded alongwith the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records. This determination at the hands of the authorities had adverse civil consequences viz. respondent No.5. It is, therefore, that the respondent No.5 had assailed the orders dated 22.03.1999 and 29.1.2000. This Court arrived at the 2 conclusion that the aforesaid orders having been passed at the back of respondent No.5, and without following the rules of natural justice, were liable to be set aside. Resultantly, the orders dated 22.03.1999 and 29.01.2000 were set aside. 3. In so far as the aforesaid factual aspect is concerned, namely, that orders dated 22.03.1999 and 29.01.2000 had been passed, affecting the civil rights of the respondent No.5, without following the rules of natural justice is concerned, is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. In view of the above, since we are satisfied that the orders dated 22.03.1999 and 29.01.2000 had adverse civil consequences relating to the rights of respondent No.5, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in setting aside the aforesaid orders, as they had been passed without affording an effective opportunity to respondent No.5 to project his position/defence in the matter at hand. Since appropriate liberty has been granted to the appellant by the learned Single Judge, enabling him to avail of an appropriate remedy in accordance with law, we are of the view that no further order needs to be passed in the facts and circumstances of the present appeal. 5. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 14.12.2009 P. Singh