Ram Harakh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 19 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9027 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 957 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Harakh And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 19 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhai Kumar Singh,Awadhesh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Mr.Om Prakash Pandey, counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 14.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that title appeal was allowed on merit after hearing both the parties, as such the appellate court cannot exercise the jurisdiction of review. He further submitted that the appellate court recorded finding that opposite parties were heard. He further submitted that Consolidation Court has no power to review his judgment as such the application filed by contesting respondents for recall in the garb of review cannot be allowed by the appellate court. He further submitted that revision filed by the petitioners was decided in absence of counsel for the petitioner on merit and the restoration application filed on the same day has been rejected saying that restoration has been filed against the interlocutory order. He further submitted that order allowing the restoration application can not be treated as interlocutory order. He placed reliance upon the full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1997 RD 562 Smt.Shivraji Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others

On the other hand Mr. Awadesh Kumar Singh, counsel for contesting respondents submitted that all the opposite parties in the appeal were not heard by the appellate court. He further submitted that appellate court has rightly allowed the restoration application regarding which the Consolidation Court has jurisdiction. He submitted that appellate court has not exercised the jurisdiction of review rather allowed the restoration application.

Matter requires consideration as to whether the appellate court has exercised the jurisdiction of review as well as whether the revison under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioners can be dismissed on merit, if the counsel for the revisionist was not present.

Issue notice to respondent Nos.4 to 9 and 15 to 20 returnable at an early date.

Steps be taken within ten days.

Respondent Nos.4 to 20 shall file counter affidavit within six weeks.

Petitioners will file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks.

List on 10th July, 2023.

Until further orders of this Court, further proceeding in appeal No.86/15-16, 127+128+219 of 2021 (Ram Harakh and others Vs. Sheet Basant and others) pending before Settlement Officer Consolidation shall remain stayed.

Order Date :- 27.3.2023

PS*