Murtaza vs Zila Upsanchalak & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3816 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                    AT NAINITAL
             Writ Petition No. 34 of 2005 (M/S)
Murtaza                                               .....Petitioner
                       Versus
Zila Upsanchalak Chakbandi/Collector Haridwar
and others
                                   ..........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 to 18.

Hon'ble Alok Singh, J (Oral).

CLMA No. 3366 of 2014 Present writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.11.2009.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in moving the restoration application is condoned. CLMA No. 3366 of 2014 stands allowed accordingly.

MCC No. 143 of 2014 For the reasons stated in the application, order dated 20.11.2009 dismissing the writ petition for non- prosecution is recalled. Writ petition is restored at its original number. MCC No. 143 of 2014 stands allowed accordingly.

Writ Petition No. 34 of 2005 (M/S)

With the consent of learned counsel for parties present petition is heard finally at this stage.

Learned consolidation Officer, after inspecting the spot, and having heard learned counsel for the parties overlooked the recommendation made by the Consolidation Committee, which has recommended to have

general abadi over Gata Nos. 82, 83, 1405 and 1406, vide order dated 29.11.1999, and was further pleased to reserve Gata Nos. 1333 and 1344 for general abadi.

Feeling aggrieved, present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Appeal so preferred was dismissed on merit after hearing both the parties, vide judgment dated 30.11.2002. The petitioner did not challenge the judgment dated 30.11.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal on merit and allowed the judgment dated 30.11.2002 to attain finality. Thereafter, present petitioner moved a restoration application for recalling the judgment dated 30.11.2002 and to restore the appeal at its original number and to rehear the appeal. Learned Appellate Authority, vide judgment dated 27.3.2003, was pleased to reject the restoration application having observed that since appeal was decided after hearing both the parties on merit on 30.11.2002, therefore, restoration application was not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred statutory revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Deputy Director of Consolidation was pleased to dismiss the revision so filed by the present petitioner, vide judgment dated 9.12.2004. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

I have heard Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned Brief Holder for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for

respondent nos. 5 to 18, and have carefully perused the record.

Undisputedly, appeal was decided by the Appellate Authority on 30.11.2002 at its own merit in accordance with law after hearing both the parties, therefore, restoration application was not maintainable against the judgment dated 30.11.2002 and it was rightly rejected by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, I do not find any fault with the impugned judgments passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. Otherwise also, on merit, the learned Consolidation Officer after inspecting the spot was pleased to discard the recommendation made by the Consolidation Committee and was pleased to reserve Gata Nos. 1343 and 1344 for the general abadi in view of the fact that both the Gata numbers were very closed to the village abadi. Therefore, on merit too, I do not find any fault with the observations/findings recorded by the learned Consolidation Officer.

Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(Alok Singh, J.) 20.8.2014 Avneet/