Allahabad High Court
Drig Pal @ Ram Kripal vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1769 of 2022
Petitioner :- Drig Pal @ Ram Kripal
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 13 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shriprakash Shrivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Mr. Shirprakash Shrivastawa, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 14 and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent No.13-Gaon Sabha.
The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 passed by respondent No.1 by which the restoration application filed against the revisional order dated 08.11.1993 has been allowed and the Revision No.310/420/448 under Section 48 (1) U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 has been restored to its original number.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of petitioner is recorded over the disputed plot and petitioner is in physical possession of the same. He further submitted that after 16 years restoration application has been filed by stranger and the earlier order passed by revisional Court was set aside and revision has been restored to its original number although the restoration application was not filed along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
On the other hand learned Standing Counsel submitted that since by the earlier order Gaon Sabha and State was not given opportunity of hearing and order was passed in favour of the petitioner as such, petitioner should approach the revisional court, where he will be given opportunity to fresh decision on merit. He further submitted that Gaon Sabha also filed restoration/recall application against the ex-parte order dated 08.11.1993 which was rightly allowed by impugned order.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
There is no dispute about the fact that by the impugned order, revisional Court has allowed the restoration application filed by Gaon Sabha and other person and restored the revision on its original number on the ground that interest of gaon sabha is also involved in the matter.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order. Petitioner has full opportunity to raise all points in the revision that Gaon Sabha and State have no right claim with respect to disputed plots.
Since petitioner is recorded in the revenue record since long and he is continuing in possession, as such interest of justice would be served by directing the respondent No.1 to decide revision within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment and till the disposal of revision or for a period of six months whichever is earlier, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect of nature and possession of the land in dispute.
The writ petition is finally disposed of with aforementioned observation.
Order Date :- 3.8.2022
PS*
