Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3069 of 2018 Petitioner :- Keshav Ram Respondent :- D.D.C. Basti And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was on the merit, the contesting opposite party, with a view to delay the proceedings had filed a recall application after a long time. He further submits that the grounds mentioned in the recall application do not show that the contesting respondents had sufficiently explained the delay.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 04.07.2013 and 9.06.2016 as well as order dated 31.07.2017.
The respondent No.2 vide order dated 04.07.2013 had allowed the application of the petitioner and modified its earlier order dated 27.09.2006.
It appears that the said order was an ex parte, hence contesting respondents moved a recall application, which was allowed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District-Basti by his order dated 09.06.2016 after hearing learned counsel for petitioner.
Aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Basti petitioner preferred a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the first respondent.
By the impugned order he has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner.
The Order dated 04.07.2013 was an ex parte order accordingly party who was likely to be effected by the order filed a recall application which is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition in the said application applicant has stated several reasons for her non appearance before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Respondent No.2 was satisfied with those reasons and recalled the ex parte order. The revisional party has declined to exercise his power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation do not call any interference as the respondent No.2 has exercised his discretion in allowing the recall application. In my view, his interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which will not in my opinion cause any prejudice to the petitioner as the matter is yet to be decided on merit.
Further the matter is pending for the considerable for a long period and an order was passed in favour of the petitioner, hence a direction be issued to Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight months from today without granting unnecessarily adjournment to the parties. The writ petition is disposed of on the aforesaid direction.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018/S. Thakur