Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5492 of 2018 Petitioner :- Deepak Sharma And 2 Others Respondent :- District Magistrate And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayub Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The order passed by the Collector / District Deputy Director of Consolidation on three applications under Rule 65 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Rules are impugned in this writ petition.
All the transfer applications were filed by the contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Two out of the three, sought transfer of two revisions while third sought transfer of a recall application, all filed by said respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Insofar as the revisions are concerned, the transfer application have been allowed and the District Deputy Director of Consolidation has summoned the files to his own court for a decision after hearing the parties.
Insofar as the transfer application regarding the restoration application is concerned, the same has been rejected holding that the restoration application be considered by the court which had earlier passed the order, sought to be recalled.
The only contention of counsel for the petitioner is that now proceedings shall continue before two different courts and, therefore, this Court may interfere in the matter.
He has also submitted that the revisions and recall application have been filed by persons who have no locus to file them and, therefore also, the impugned orders call for interference.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record.
Insofar as the orders transferring /summoning the revisions is concerned, the same in my considered opinion, calls for no interference because no prejudice is caused to the petitioner of these orders.
It is always open for the petitioner to raise the plea that the revisionist has no locus, before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation who is competent to deal with such a plea. This Court is not inclined to enter into this controversy at the first instance.
The other contention that now the matters shall have to be proceeded before two different courts is concerned, suffice it to state that the scope of a revision and the scope of a restoration application are clearly different. Therefore, in case restoration application is directed to be considered by the court which had earlier passed the order sought to be recalled, there is no illegality in such direction.
For the reasons given above and since no ground for interference is made out, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Priyanka