Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15314 of 2018 Petitioner :- Hridesh And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mazhar Ullah,Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri B.B. Pandey, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents. Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava appears for Gaon Sabha.
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the second respondent in Revision No.201613000025; the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by third respondent in Recall Application No.201613001101 (Hridesh & Ors. v. Chandrapal & Ors.) as well as the order dated 14.9.2015 passed by fourth respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners being aggrieved with the allotment of agricultural lease to the private respondents arrayed as respondent nos.5 to 8 without following the norms provided in UPZA & LR Act and Rules had proceeded to file case under Section 198 (4) of UPZA & LR Act with detailed facts and evidence before the fourth respondent but at no point of time the said evidence as led by the petitioners had been seen by the competent authority and the order impugned has been passed. The same was assailed in revision. The aforesaid revision was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 12.1.2017 exparte as it is contended that the petitioner, who was pairokar of the said applicants-petitioners was under treatment at the relevant point of time. Once he got the knowledge of the order dated 12.1.2017 he has moved recall/ restoration application dated 24.3.2017 but the same was also rejected vide order dated 10.08.2017.
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner was looking after the interest of the remaining applicants-petitioners as all the petitioners were landless and belonging to SC community (Jatav) and their sources were very meager. He has also placed reliance on the affidavit, which has been filed along with the application under Section 198 (4) of UPZA & LR Act, wherein it is categorically averred that the first applicant (first petitioner herein) namely Hridesh son of Shri Kripal Singh, who himself is aggrieved, is doing pairvi on behalf of himself and on behalf of remaining applicants. It is contended that at the relevant point of time when the revision in question was dismissed as exparte the petitioner was suffering from ailment. While moving application for restoration he has also brought on record his medical condition but at no point of time the same has been appreciated and in most arbitrary manner the restoration application has been rejected.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that definitely the petitioner has brought into notice to the revisional authority regarding his ailment. No doubt various dates have been fixed in the matter but taking into consideration the financial and economic status of the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the restoration application was liable to be decided taking into account the financial and economic status of the petitioner as well as his medical condition but such fact has never been taken into note or consideration by the revisional authority. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the order impugned rejecting the restoration application in question cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the revisional court to decide the restoration application in accordance with law and in view of the observations made hereinabove expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 SP/