1. Heard.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the respondent no.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao in Revision No.367/17-18, 899/16-17: Ram Bhajan and others Vs. Sohan Lal and others.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that father of the petitioner and father of the respondent nos.2 and 3, namely, Fakirey had purchased the land of Gata No.707 ad-measuring one bigha and one biswa in Village Geruwa, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao, about 31 years ago and the land was also recorded in their names. After purchasing of the land, a partition took place between Late Radhey Lal and Late Fakirey.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that after the partition, the father of the respondent nos.2 and 3 Fakirey had taken forcible possession of land on the southern side. After the death of Radhey Lal, the petitioner and his brother were recorded tenure holder and they planted 50-60 trees on the northern side of the land in question. In 2015, the petitioner along with his brother submitted an application for correction of their chak in revenue records praying for recording of their names on the northern side of Gata No.707. The application was rejected on 10.08.2017. The petitioner thereafter filed an Appeal before the Consolidation Officer but the same was also rejected on 29.12.2017. The petitioner and his brother again filed a Revision numbered as Revision No.367/17-18, 899/16-17. The Revision was admitted and the order was passed for amendment in chak on 21.05.2018. The respondent nos.2 and 3 concealing the said fact that they were heard and the order dated 21.05.2018 had been passed after spot inspection and measurement of the Gata No.707, filed a recall application. This application was allowed by the impugned order dated 09.11.2020.
5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Deputy Director of Consolidation had no power to review/ recall his own order as has been held by Hon'ble Court in several of its decisions.
6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has pointed out that a perusal of the order impugned would show that the same had been passed ignoring the order dated 26.02.2016 in Reference No.318 relating to the same Gata No.707. Since the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.05.2018 was passed in ignorance of an earlier order passed by him in Reference No.318 on 26.02.2016, it was appropriate that the order dated 21.05.2018 be recalled and the matter be heard on its merits and exactly the same thing had been done by the Deputy Director Consolidation and there is no need to interfere in the order impugned.
7. This Court also finds from a perusal of the order impugned that there is a recording of the fact that earlier a Reference No.318 was decided on 26.02.2016 in respect of same Gata no.707. However, the order dated 21.05.2018, which has been filed as annexure-2 to the writ petition, shows that there is no reference at all to the said judgment dated 26.02.2016 therein.
8. It may lead to contradictory orders being passed by the same authority for the same Gata number, therefore, this Court does not find any good ground to show interference in extraordinary jurisdiction exercised by it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.1.2021 Rahul