Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1329/2021 on 14 July, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 1329 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for
the petitioners.
The proceeding under Section 9A (2) of
the Consolidation of Holdings Act, was decided
by the Consolidation Officer vide its judgment of
9th May, 2017, and as a consequence thereto, the
objection filed under Section 9A (2), was
allowed.
The respondent No.1, alleging that the
order dated 9th May, 2017, was ex parte, he had
filed a Recall Application, seeking recall of the
judgment of 9th May, 2017. However, the Recall
/ Restoration Application, which was filed by
respondent No.1, was rejected on 17th November,
2021, by the Consolidation Officer.
As against the rejection of the restoration
application by the Consolidation Officer on
17.11.2021, the respondent No.1 preferred an
Appeal under Section 11 (1) of Consolidation of
Holdings Act, which was numbered as Appeal
No. 596 of 2020-21, challenging the order
rejecting the restoration application of
respondent No.1. The Appeal too was dismissed
by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide its
order of 28th December, 2020.
The respondent No.1, being aggrieved
against the said order, passed in an appellate
jurisdiction, the respondent No.1, had preferred a
Revision under Section 48 of the Consolidation
of Holdings Act, in which, while issuing notices
to the respondents, therein, the Deputy Director
Consolidation, had passed an interim order in
Revision No. 43 of 2021-22, Mohakam Singh
Vs. Afzal and others, whereby, the parties to the
Revision, had been directed to maintain status
quo and the matter has been fixed for 15th July,
2021.
Looking to the nature of order, which has
been put to challenge by the petitioner before
this Court, there are two arguments, which are
extended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, that prior to the passing of the interim
order directing to maintain status quo, he was not
heard and, secondly, the order has been passed
and would remain to operate till the pendency of
revision.
Both these arguments, for the purposes of
scrutinising the interlocutory order is not
available to the petitioner, for the reason being
that, invariably when a Revision is heard, under
a statute which is a creation under law, under
Section 48 of the Act, the interim order requires
to be granted in order to protect the subject
matter of the lis, and in an eventuality, when the
interim order was granted without hearing the
caveator / respondents, or if the respondent has
not put an appearance, then it is always open for
the respondent to file a Stay Vacation
Application, along with the objection to the
Revision and get the stay vacated by pressing his
Stay Vacation Application.
The Writ Petition as against the grant of an
interim order, which is interlocutory in nature,
will not be maintainable
Hence, this Writ Petition is being
dismissed, subject to the liberty left open to the
petitioner to file a Stay Vacation Application,
along with the objection to the Revision and the
Deputy Director Consolidation, is directed to
decide the Stay Vacation Application which
would be filed by the petitioner within a period
of two months from the date of its production.
Subject to the above observation, the Writ
Petition stands dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 14.07.2021
Shiv
