High Court · 2025
Case Details
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Krishna Singh, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. Under challenge is the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich, whereby an application for recall moved by the State-respondents seeking recall of the order dated 24.12.2019 has been recalled with specific findings that in the revision, preferred by the petitioner, notice was not issued to the State-respondents even though the State was a party and there is nothing to indicate from the record that at any point of time, the State was aware of the revision and for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 24.12.2019 has been recalled and the revision has been fixed for hearing on its own merits. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at first the petitioner being aggrieved against an order dated 03.09.1963 had preferred a time barred appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The said appeal came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation against which the petitioner had preferred a revision and the revisional Court by means of the order dated 24.12.2019 allowed the revision, condoned the delay on a cost of Rs.500/- and remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the dispute on merits. It is further urged that after the order dated 24.12.2019, the matter stood revived before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahriach, who by means of the order dated 07.08.2020 set aside the order dated 03.09.1963 on the ground that it was without notice to the State and since the interest of the State was involved as the dispute relating to the public utility land and it is considering the application for recall that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich passed an order dated 10.12.2024 recalling the order dated 24.12.2019 and directed the revision to be heard on its own merits. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the delay has been condoned and no rights of the parties including the State has been adversely affected rather the State has ample opportunity to contest the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer on merits, hence, in such circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich was not justified in recalling the order dated 24.12.2019. Dr. Krishna Singh, learned standing counsel for the State while opposing the aforesaid submissions has pointed out that apparently the appeal which was filed by the petitioner was delayed by about 56 years. There was not cogent reason given in the application seeking condonation of delay and accordingly, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. It is urged that once the revision was filed by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the revisional authority to have issued notice to the State noticing that the land of the State was involved but there was no notice either issued or served on the State and in such circumstances, the order dated 24.12.2019 was ex-parte. As soon as, the State received the notice from the Court of Consolidation Officer in the month of May, 2024 did the State make necessary inspection and moved an application for recall before the revisional Court which has been allowed. It is further urged that prior to the notice issued by the Consolidation Officer, the State was not aware especially even after the order dated 24.12.2019 when the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation also did not issue notice to the State- respondents. Hence, the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 07.08.2020 was also ex-parte. In the aforesaid circumstance, it is submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich has rightly recalled the order and in any case the revision yet to be heard on merits and for the petitioner can have no grievance inasmuch as if an opportunity of hearing is granted to the State, who has a right to oppose on the issue of limitation, no prejudice is caused. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, the only issue that requires consideration is the fact that whether the State was served with the notice in the revision, wherein the order dated 24.12.2019 was passed. In this regard, the State has placed the original record before this Court and from a perusal thereof, it is clear that the revision was preferred by the petitioner on 11.07.2019. On the said revision itself, an order was passed on 11.07.2019 indicating that the revision be registered and be fixed for admission on 16.07.2019. A perusal of the original record reveals that the revision was listed on several occasions and as late as on 06.09.2019, the record of the trial Court concerned was summoned and thereafter the matter was heard on 12.12.2019 fixing 24.12.2019 for pronouncement of the order, on which date, the order was pronounced condoning the delay and remitting the matter to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that at no point of time, any notice was issued to the State despite the fact that the State was only contesting respondents in the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that no notice was issued or served on the State before passing of the order dated 24.12.2019 and in such circumstances, this Court does not find that there is any error committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich in its order dated 10.12.2024 when it recalled the earlier order dated 24.12.2019 solely on the ground that the State was not served nor heard. Since, the matter is already listed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich to be heard on merits of the revision, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed. It is also clarified that mere dismissal of the writ petition may not come in the way of the respective parties, who are free to raise all their objections before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich where the matter is listed. Needless to say the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich shall decide the revision on its own merits after hearing the parties concerned as expeditiously as possible. Order Date :- 28.1.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Krishna Singh, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. Under challenge is the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich, whereby an application for recall moved by the State-respondents seeking recall of the order dated 24.12.2019 has been recalled with specific findings that in the revision, preferred by the petitioner, notice was not issued to the State-respondents even though the State was a party and there is nothing to indicate from the record that at any point of time, the State was aware of the revision and for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 24.12.2019 has been recalled and the revision has been fixed for hearing on its own merits. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at first the petitioner being aggrieved against an order dated 03.09.1963 had preferred a time barred appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The said appeal came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation against which the petitioner had preferred a revision and the revisional Court by means of the order dated 24.12.2019 allowed the revision, condoned the delay on a cost of Rs.500/- and remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the dispute on merits. It is further urged that after the order dated 24.12.2019, the matter stood revived before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahriach, who by means of the order dated 07.08.2020 set aside the order dated 03.09.1963 on the ground that it was without notice to the State and since the interest of the State was involved as the dispute relating to the public utility land and it is considering the application for recall that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich passed an order dated 10.12.2024 recalling the order dated 24.12.2019 and directed the revision to be heard on its own merits. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the delay has been condoned and no rights of the parties including the State has been adversely affected rather the State has ample opportunity to contest the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer on merits, hence, in such circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich was not justified in recalling the order dated 24.12.2019. Dr. Krishna Singh, learned standing counsel for the State while opposing the aforesaid submissions has pointed out that apparently the appeal which was filed by the petitioner was delayed by about 56 years. There was not cogent reason given in the application seeking condonation of delay and accordingly, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. It is urged that once the revision was filed by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the revisional authority to have issued notice to the State noticing that the land of the State was involved but there was no notice either issued or served on the State and in such circumstances, the order dated 24.12.2019 was ex-parte. As soon as, the State received the notice from the Court of Consolidation Officer in the month of May, 2024 did the State make necessary inspection and moved an application for recall before the revisional Court which has been allowed. It is further urged that prior to the notice issued by the Consolidation Officer, the State was not aware especially even after the order dated 24.12.2019 when the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation also did not issue notice to the State- respondents. Hence, the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 07.08.2020 was also ex-parte. In the aforesaid circumstance, it is submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich has rightly recalled the order and in any case the revision yet to be heard on merits and for the petitioner can have no grievance inasmuch as if an opportunity of hearing is granted to the State, who has a right to oppose on the issue of limitation, no prejudice is caused. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, the only issue that requires consideration is the fact that whether the State was served with the notice in the revision, wherein the order dated 24.12.2019 was passed. In this regard, the State has placed the original record before this Court and from a perusal thereof, it is clear that the revision was preferred by the petitioner on 11.07.2019. On the said revision itself, an order was passed on 11.07.2019 indicating that the revision be registered and be fixed for admission on 16.07.2019. A perusal of the original record reveals that the revision was listed on several occasions and as late as on 06.09.2019, the record of the trial Court concerned was summoned and thereafter the matter was heard on 12.12.2019 fixing 24.12.2019 for pronouncement of the order, on which date, the order was pronounced condoning the delay and remitting the matter to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that at no point of time, any notice was issued to the State despite the fact that the State was only contesting respondents in the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that no notice was issued or served on the State before passing of the order dated 24.12.2019 and in such circumstances, this Court does not find that there is any error committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich in its order dated 10.12.2024 when it recalled the earlier order dated 24.12.2019 solely on the ground that the State was not served nor heard. Since, the matter is already listed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich to be heard on merits of the revision, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed. It is also clarified that mere dismissal of the writ petition may not come in the way of the respective parties, who are free to raise all their objections before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich where the matter is listed. Needless to say the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich shall decide the revision on its own merits after hearing the parties concerned as expeditiously as possible. Order Date :- 28.1.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench