Allahabad High Court
Shivram vs Deputy Director Consolidation ... on 4 April, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 248 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shivram
Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation Sultanpur And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Pandey,Kripa Shankar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vishal Sonkar, learned counsel for the State and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
By means of present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, whereby the order(s) dated 25.01.2005 and 05.04.2005, which was passed after consolidating two revisions i.e. Revision No.181/376/1789 (Krishna Dev & Others vs. Abhayraj & Others) and Revision No.82/2240 (Abhayraj vs. State) filed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, have been recalled.
It would be apt to point out that the application for recall of order(s) was preferred by the State alleging therein that revisions were decided without providing opportunity of hearing to State, though, in view of nature of land i.e. Charagah, it was necessary.
Admittedly, (i) the petitioner, who is aged about 63 years old, is the son of Abhay Raj and (ii) the order(s) dated 25.01.2005 and 05.04.2005 have been recalled by the impugned order after almost 17 years.
Challenging the order(s) in issue, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that (i) without praying for condonation of delay the application for recall/restoration was allowed by the impugned order; (ii) the notice was duly served upon the Authority concerned; and (iii) the order on merits can not be recalled by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as this authority has no power to review/recall the order passed on merits. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anar Kali & Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Others; reported in 1997 (15) LCD 921.
Considering the aforesaid, this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to show the specific pleadings and document in support thereof where from it can be deduced that the notice was served upon the State of U.P. and in response, he could not place the same before this Court from where it can be deduced that the notice to the State of U.P. was duly served.
Aforesaid query was put in view of the fact(s) that the application for recall of the order(s) in issue was moved on the ground of service of notice by the District Government Counsel, who represents the State of U.P. in the Revenue Court and the State of U.P. was the party to the revision filed by the predecessor in interest namely Abhayraj and moreover, there is specific finding in the impugned order that the notice was not served upon the State of U.P.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the notice was duly served upon Gaon Sabha. This argument in the present case is fallacious as the application for recall of the order(s) in issue was not preferred by the Gaon Sabha.
In view of aforesaid, this Court finds that no notice was served upon the State of U.P. and being so, to the view of this Court, the judgment passed in the case of Anar Kali (supra), upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would not apply in the present as in this case ex-parte order was passed against the State of U.P., as such, in the present case, the judgment dated 28.10.2015 passed by this Court in Consolidation No. 206 of 2013 (Mumtaz Ahmad and Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow & Ors.) would apply, upon which reliance has been placed by Sri Vishal Sonkar, learned counsel for the State and accordingly, this Court is of the view that the Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly recalled the order(s) dated 25.01.2005 and 05.04.2005, which were passed without proper service of notice upon State of U.P.
For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated 28.10.2022 is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.4.2023
Vinay/-
