Babulal vs Tehsildar Teh. Aalapur A.Nagar & ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 6624 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 24
 

 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20883 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Babulal
 
Respondent :- Tehsildar Teh. Aalapur A.Nagar & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and to the learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.1.

On the issue involved in the present writ petition, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 as their interest would be well protected by the order proposed to be passed in the present writ petition.

Grievance of the petitioner is that an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was moved before the Tehsildar, which was allowed vide order dated 2.7.1990. The opposite party Nos.3 and 4 moved an application for recall of the order on 20.2.1990, which was allowed on 20.12.1990 with the cost of Rs.30/-.

Thereafter, the matter was heard and decided vide order dated 29.10.1996, whereby order passed on 2.7.1990 was affirmed. An application was moved by the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 on 30.10.1996 for recall of the order, which was rejected on 20.5.1997, against which, the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alapur, which was allowed and direction was issued to reconsider the recall/ restoration application vide order dated 25.10.2002, whereby the orders dated 20.5.1997 and 27.5.1997 were set aside and the matter was remanded back to decide the restoration/ recall application dated 30.10.1996.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of best efforts of the petitioner, after the remand of the matter, no steps whatsoever have been taken for deciding the restoration/ recall application filed on 30.10.1996, thus, his submission is that in case direction is issued to the respondent No.1 for deciding the restoration/ recall application filed on 30.10.1996, justice would be met.

In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending.

Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also without entering into the merits of the case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.1 to decide the restoration/ recall application dated 30.10.1996 in Case No.T20080444118 (Julmi and others Vs. Krishna Kumar) filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 after providing opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and following procedure prescribed under law expeditiously, say within a period of 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

It is also provided that the benefit of this order shall not be available to the petitioner, in case any request is made to adjourn the case before the Court below.

Order Date :- 1.8.2019

Gautam