Ram Adhar vs Joint Director Of ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 5070 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 353 of 2005
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Adhar
 
Respondent :- Joint Director Of Consolidation,Pratapgarh And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vina Gupta,Pramod Kumar Pandey,Vijay Kumar Jaiswal,Vishnu Dev Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.P.Singh Sombansi
 

 
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.

List revised.  No one appears for the respondent no.2 Mithai Lal.

Heard Sri Vishnu Dev Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.

A reference under Section 48(3) of U.P.C.H. Act was accepted by the JDC, Pratapgarh by one word 'order' approved on 1.10.2004. As the reference was likely to affect the interest of other persons hence the JDC should have issued notice to all the persons concerned.  Thereafter petitioner filed restoration application.  On 16.3.2005, Joint Director Consolidation, Pratapgarh rejected the restoration application, Ram Adhar vs. Mithai Lal.  In the said impugned order, it is not held that at the earlier occasion, petitioner had been heard.  Even from perusal of the one word, order dated 1.10.2004 it is clear that the petitioner was not heard.  The reason given by the JDC for rejecting the restoration application that against the earlier order petitioner should have approached the higher Court is not correct as every party has got full right to apply for restoration and setting aside of ex-parte order.  Order dated 16.3.2005 is patently erroneous in law hence it is set aside.  Order dated 1.10.2004 accepting the reference is also set aside.  Reference is restored on the file of DDC/JDC which shall be decided afresh after issuing notice to each and every person concerned and hearing him.

 As no one appeared today for contesting respondent no.2 in this writ petition hence notice shall specifically be issued to respondent no.2 Mithai Lal.

Writ petition is allowed as above.

Order Date :- 13.8.2013

Ravi