Allahabad High Court
Sachchida Nand Tiwari & Ors. vs D.D.C.Unnao & Ors. on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 16628 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sachchida Nand Tiwari & Ors.
Respondent :- D.D.C.Unnao & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1. In view of order being passed notices to opposite parties 2 and 3 stand dispensed with.
Petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.1995 passed by opposite party no.1 in revision no.803 under section 48 C.H. Act, (Ram Sanehi Vs. Raghunandan and others) contained in annexure no.1, to this writ petition.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1 to consider and decide the application for restoration/recall of order dated 19.12.1995 pending before him in revision no.803 under section 48 of C.H. Act (Ram Sanehi Vs. Raghunandan and others) and till disposal of said application the opposite party no.2 and 3 may be directed to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. ......"
Learned counsel for petitioner at the very outset is not pressing the prayer No.1 and is emphasizing only on the prayer No.2. It is submitted that the petitioner did not have any knowledge with regard to the order dated 19th December, 1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision No. 803. It is submitted that even after passing of the aforesaid order, the ground situation with regard to possession had not changed as would be clear from the demarcation report dated 27th June, 2019. It is submitted that the petitioners became aware with regard to the aforesaid order only on 20th October, 2020 whereafter the recall/restoration application has been filed on 3rd December, 2020 in which notices were issued to the private respondents. It is submitted that in the order dated 6th April, 2021, the opposite party No.1 has recorded the fact that despite service of notice, the private respondents have not put in appearance. However learned counsel for petitioner submits that due to the implementation of the earlier order dated 19th December 1995, it would be expedient that the recall application filed by the petitioner is heard at the earliest.
In view of aforesaid submissions, the opposite party No.1 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao is directed to decide the application for recall/restoration dated 3rd December, 2020 filed by the petitioners in Revision No. 803 (Ram Sanehi versus Raghunandan and others) expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is brought on record in the said proceedings after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021
prabhat
