### Administrative Recalling of Final Judicial Decrees and Declared Abadi Status Without Notice Is Jurisdictionally Void

The petitioner, an educational institution, operates a school in Lahartara, Varanasi, on land acquired through a registered lease deed from Smt. Dhiraji Devi in 2002.

The title of the lessor was previously affirmed by a judicial decree dated 23.04.1988 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

Despite this decree remaining intact, the 3rd Additional City Magistrate, acting on a complaint by a third party (Respondent No. 4) in 2012, passed an administrative order on 15.12.2012 recalling the mutation (Parwana Amaldaramad) and effectively sitting in judgment over the 1988 appellate decree.

Simultaneously, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) passed orders on 21.11.2012 and 20.12.2012 recalling a decade-old declaration of the land as 'Abadi' and re-recording it as a 'Pond' (Pokhari) under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, alleging the land belonged to the State.

All impugned orders were passed ex-parte without notice to the petitioner.

1. Whether an administrative authority has the jurisdiction to set aside or bypass a judicial/quasi-judicial decree through an administrative order.

2. Whether long-standing revenue entries and declarations under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act can be recalled ex-parte without following the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether land settled as Sir or Khudkasht under Section 18 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act can be summarily converted to public pond status without evidence of it being public land.

Judicial or quasi-judicial orders cannot be set aside by administrative authorities in a summary manner.

Doctrine of Natural Justice/Audi Alteram Partem, requiring notice to affected parties before passing orders to their prejudice.

Section 18 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which settles Sir and Khudkasht land with the tenure-holder, and Section 143, regarding the declaration of land as 'Abadi'.

Principle of Estoppel: since the Nagar Nigam had previously issued a 'No Objection Certificate' stating the land was not its property, it could not later claim otherwise.

The 3rd Additional City Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by attempting to nullify a 24-year-old appellate decree through a mere administrative order passed within five days of a third-party complaint.

The court observed that Respondent No. 4 was an "absolute stranger" set up by the administration, a fact corroborated by the respondent's own later affidavit.

Regarding the conversion of land status to 'Pond', the court analyzed the 1359 Fasli records, which proved the land was Sir Malikan (private cultivation) and thus stood settled with the owner under Section 18; therefore, it did not vest in the State as a public pond.

The authorities failed to observe natural justice by not hearing the petitioner, whose registered rights and school infrastructure were directly affected.

The court allowed both writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders dated 15.12.2012, 21.11.2012, and 20.12.2012, and restrained the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and running of the school on the subject plots.