Administrative orders cannot override judicial findings or bypass natural justice during ongoing consolidation proceedings.

The petitioners are Bhumidhars with transferable rights in Village Bhogpur, Haridwar, holding land under various Chaks in CH Form-23.

Previous legal objections regarding their land titles filed by respondent no. 6 (Gram Sabha) were dismissed by Consolidation Courts between 2009 and 2015, with some orders becoming final and others subject to pending restoration applications.

On June 7, 2017, the District Magistrate, Haridwar (Respondent No. 2), acting on an inquiry report alleging the entries were fraudulent, passed an administrative order canceling the petitioners' names and recording the land in the name of the State.

Subsequently, on June 12, 2017, the Deputy Director Consolidation (Respondent No. 3) directed the taking of possession of said lands.

The petitioners challenged these orders as being passed without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice.

1. Whether the District Magistrate and Deputy Director Consolidation have the jurisdiction to pass administrative orders canceling land entries while consolidation proceedings are active under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953?

2. Whether an administrative order can legally override or upset a prior judicial order passed by a Consolidation Court?

3. Whether the impugned orders are sustainable given they were passed ex-parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners?

The court primarily applied Section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, which mandates that during consolidation operations, only Consolidation Courts have the jurisdiction to decide land disputes.

Sections 11-C and 48(3) of the same Act regarding the powers of consolidation authorities to correct records, noting these must be exercised within the framework of consolidation proceedings.

The fundamental Principle of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem), requiring a fair hearing before an adverse order is passed.

Statement on the doctrine that an administrative authority cannot annul a judicial or quasi-judicial order.

The court reasoned that since Village Bhogpur was under active consolidation notification, any dispute regarding title or fraudulent entries must be adjudicated by the specific Consolidation Courts established under the Act, not through the administrative wing of the District Magistrate.

The High Court observed that the Respondent authorities attempted to use administrative powers to bypass and "upset" final judicial orders previously passed in favor of the petitioners, which is legally impermissible.

The court found the procedure adopted to be patently illegal as the petitioners were never served notice or heard before their land rights were extinguished, rendering the orders as violative of natural justice.

The court emphasized that even if the State believed the entries were forged, it was bound to invoke the proper legal remedies before a competent judicial forum rather than issuing summary administrative directions.

The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders dated June 7, 2017, and June 12, 2017, granting the State of Uttarakhand the liberty to invoke appropriate legal remedies before a court of competent jurisdiction.