Two Contrasting Orders Passed On Same Day In Revenue Matter Cannot Be Brushed Aside As Mere Negligence: Allahabad High Court Pulls Up State

"The very fact that two orders operate exactly in contrast to each other i.e. one passed in favour of the litigant and the other against him, the matter is not of negligence on the part of the officer, rather it is clear case where two orders were prepared by the officer so as to advance favour to one party and disfavour to other." Allahabad High Court, in a sternly worded ruling, held that passing two contradictory judicial orders on the same day in a revenue matter cannot be attributed to mere administrative negligence or clerical error by subordinate staff.

A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra expressed deep anguish and serious displeasure over the manner in which the State Government sought to shield a Sub-Divisional Officer by blaming clerical personnel for contradictory rulings.

Genesis Of The Controversy

The matter arose from a writ petition filed by Shiv Narayan Tiwari, who sought a thorough departmental inquiry against a District Collector and subordinate officials. The petitioner discovered that two completely contrasting final orders had been uploaded on the official Revenue Court Computerized Management System (RCMS) portal on August 17, 2023, by the then Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) of Deoria Sadar, Yogesh Kumar Gaur, in a land revenue case.

Dual Conflicting Orders On Record

The primary question before the court was how two diametrically opposite judicial outcomes could emanate from the same court on the same date. While one certified copy of the order allowed the petitioner's claim for correction of revenue entries under Section 31/32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the other digital version dismissed the case entirely on merits. The state initially attempted to pass off the discrepancy as an inadvertent uploading error by ministerial staff.

Ministerial Staff Cannot Dictate Judicial Merits

The court forcefully rejected the state's attempt to scapegoat the Bench Secretary and the Revenue Ahalmad for the creation of two conflicting substantive judgments. The bench observed that while administrative staff handle the technicalities of portal uploads, they possess zero authority or role in determining the substantive outcome of a judicial proceeding.

"Neither A Reader Of The Court Nor Revenue Ahalmad Can Have Any Role In Pronouncing Two Different Orders On Merits"

The judges emphasized that ministerial staff are strictly confined to administrative duties and cannot craft the legal text of judicial adjudications. The existence of two opposing decrees signed or processed under the authority of the presiding officer points directly to deliberate manipulation rather than accidental oversight.

State's Laxity And Inquiry Flaws Come Under Scanner

Noting that the departmental inquiry had conveniently restricted its penal recommendations to a minor charge against the Bench Secretary for uploading an unsigned draft, the high court slammed the executive's approach. The court noted that treating the preparation of two opposing decrees as mere "negligence" makes a mockery of accountability in quasi-judicial proceedings.

"Matter Is Not Of Negligence On The Part Of The Officer, Rather It Is Clear Case Where Two Orders Were Prepared To Advance Favour"

The bench underscored that when two orders operate in direct contrast to each other, the inference of corrupt motive or improper influence becomes inescapable. Such glaring judicial impropriety strikes at the root of public trust in revenue administration and warrants exemplary disciplinary measures.

Principal Secretary Directed To File Personal Affidavit

Rejecting the unsatisfactory inquiry report submitted alongside the state's counter affidavit, the high court issued strict directives to fix accountability. The Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department, Government of U.P., has been directed to file a personal affidavit detailing all departmental proceedings taken so far.

"State Government Must Clear Its Stand In Terms Of Its Zero Tolerance Policy Against Corruption"

The court mandated that the personal affidavit must explicitly reflect the government's stated policy against corruption when dealing with erring judicial officers. The matter has now been listed for further comprehensive orders to ensure that systemic rot in revenue courts is addressed firmly.

Date of Decision: 20 July 2026