Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2761 of 2019 Petitioner :- Akhilesh Baranwal And 06 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 04 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hare Ram Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava,Santosh Singh,Tripathi B.G. Bhai
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4 in the Court today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Hare Ram Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 30.10.2019 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti/respondent No.2 in Revision No.447 of 2019 filed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1953") as well as order dated 18.1.2019 passed by respondent No.3 namely Consolidation Officer, Sonha/Bhanpur Basti.
Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that certain objections were submitted by the petitioners under Section 9A of the Act 1953 before the Consolidation Officer Sonha/Bhanpur Basti/respondent No.3. On the aforesaid objections, notices were issued to the private respondents. Ultimately objections filed by the petitioners were allowed by the respondent No.3 vide its order dated 25.5.2018, copy of which is appended as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 25.5.2018, a recall application was filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 before the respondent No.3 on 5.12.2018 and the said recall application was allowed by him vide its order dated 18.1.2019.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 18.1.2019 passed by respondent No.3 is an ex-parte order. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti/respondent No.2 as provided under Section 48 of the Act, 1953. The said revision was rejected by the respondent No.2 vide its order dated 30.10.2019. It is further argued that various dates were fixed on the objections but the respondent Nos.4 and 5 deliberately and willfully not to choose appear before the Court, therefore, the order dated 25.5.2018 was rightly passed by the respondent No.3. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that although a time barred recall application was filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 before the respondent No.3 but the same was wholly illegally allowed vide order dated 18.1.2019 without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners . Specific averments in this regard has been made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition. It is further argued that the revision was rightly preferred by the petitioners before the respondent No.2 but the same was rejected.
On the other hand, Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 argued that the orders passed by respondent No.3 dated 18.1.2019 as well as order passed by respondent No.2 dated 30.10.2019 were rightly passed and the matter was remanded back before the respondent No.3 and the same is still pending before him, therefore, both the orders do not want any interference by this Court specially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In response to the arguments made by counsel for respondent No.4 and 5, Sri Hare Ram Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that various findings were recorded by the respondent No.2 while passing the order dated 30.10.2019 and the aforesaid findings would certainly affect the merits of the case.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
It appears from perusal of record that against the order dated 25.5.2018, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed recall application and the said recall application was allowed ex-parte vide order dated 18.1.2019, without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It further appears that against the order dated 18.1.2019, the petitioners rightly filed revision but the said revision was illegally rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 30.10.2019. Both the orders appear to be illegal but ultimately the merits of the case is to be decided by the Consolidation Officer after hearing all the concerned tenure holders which is still pending before respondent No.3.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, without interfering into the merits of the order dated 18.1.2019 passed by respondent No.3 as well as order dated 30.10.2019 passed by respondent No.2, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to decide the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 9 A of the Act, 1953 expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
it is made clear that the respondent No.3 will not take into consideration the findings recorded in the order dated 30.10.2019 passed by respondent No.2 as well as order dated 18.1.2019 passed by himself (respondent No.3) and the respondent No.3 will pass fresh order independently in accordance with law without prejudice and influencing with the observations made in the aforesaid orders.
Till the time a decision has been taken on the aforesaid objections, parties shall maintain status quo as on date.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 saqlain