Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1619 of 2019 Petitioner :- Haridas And 4 Others Respondent :- Additional District Magistrate And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Against an order dated 18.11.1987 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jhansi, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Pyare Lal, i.e., the father of the petitioners filed Revision No. 215/1988-89 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jhansi,i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') under Section 48 of the Act, 1953. The said revision was dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 25.4.1998. On 26.9.2002, Pyare Lal filed a restoration application stating that the said order was an ex-parte order and be recalled as he could not be present during the revision because no information was given by his counsel regarding the different dates fixed in the revision and he was employed as labour in Delhi, therefore, was not aware about the different dates fixed in the revision. The recall application was dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 21.8.2007 on the ground that the order dated 25.4.1998 passed in Revision No. 215/1988-89 was a reasoned order and was passed after hearing the counsel for the parties. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments that Pyare Lal died in 2017. After the death of Pyare Lal, the petitioners filed another application praying that the orders dated 25.4.1998 and 21.8.2017 passed by the D.D.C. be recalled on the ground that their father was ill and, therefore, could not do the pairvi of the case and the pairvi was being done by Disu, the elder brother of their father.
The D.D.C. vide his order dated 6.10.2018 has dismissed the recall application filed by the petitioners. The orders dated 25.4.1998, 21.8.2017 and 6.10.2018 passed by the D.D.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition.
A reading of the orders dated 21.8.2017 and 6.10.2018 passed by the D.D.C. shows that the said orders have been passed after considering the material on record and on the ground that the previous orders had been passed after hearing the parties. It is relevant to note that no recall application was filed by Pyare Lal, i.e., the father of the petitioners for recall of the order dated 21.8.2007 even though he died in 2017, i.e., ten years after the order dated 21.8.2007.
In view of the aforesaid, the orders dated 21.8.2017 and 6.10.2018 are based on evidence on record and require no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
So far as the order dated 25.4.1998 is concerned, no substantial grounds have been raised in the writ petition against the merits of the aforesaid order and the claim of the petitioners was rejected by the D.D.C. on the ground that he had not been able to prove his claim before the revisional court.
There is no illegality in the order dated 25.4.1998 passed by the D.D.C. The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any perversity in the findings recorded by the D.D.C. in his order dated 25.4.1998.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks merit, and is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Anurag/-