The case is called out.
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner with regard to pendency of a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation since 4.6.2013. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is made opposite party no.1 and the private party with whom the litigation is going on made opposite party no.2 to this writ petition.
Copy of the writ petition is received in the office of C.S.C. Learned A.C.S.C. is appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1.
In view of the proposed order notice to private opposite party no.2 is not necessary and therefore, the same is dispensed with.
Admittedly, the consolidation of holding with regard to disputed plots has been over with publication of notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act made in the year 1985, then also opposite party no.2 got his name mutated. Thereafter the course of litigation moved upto High Court and then the matter came to the Consolidation Officer by way of remand, again. The Consolidation Officer rejected the application to correct the entry by restoring the name of the petitioner and therefore, a new round of litigation has arose wherein a fresh revision petition is filed on 4.6.2013.
The typed copy of the order sheet is annexed which shows that right from 3.3.2016 till now only general dates are being fixed either due to non availability of the presiding officer or due to his busyness in the administrative work or simply without any reason fixed another dates. It becomes amply clear from the typed copy of the order sheet supported with the affidavit that the authority before whom the revision is pending i.e. the opposite party no.1, is not interested in disposing the revision by applying mind over the matter in judicious manner while the exercise of judicial power in revenue matter comes under his bounded duty.
The pendency of a matter is not only vexatious for the parties to the litigation but onerous to the revenue department, also therefore, learned A.C.S.C. would not have any objection, if such direction is issued to the concerned officer for expeditious disposal of the revision.
In view of the above, the opposite party no.1, Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to hear the parties to the revision petition bearing no.33 (Govind Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act and decide the same completely and efficaciously in accordance with law, the facts and material available on record within a reasonable time to a maximum period of three months from the date, certified copy of the order is placed before him.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Gaurav/-