Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 951 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Khurshida Begum Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Shri Girish Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing for respondents and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to implement the order dated 05.12.2018 in Case No.06 of 2018 (Khurshida Begum Versus State) under Section 42-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the application dated 17.12.2018 supported with affidavit filed by the petitioner under Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings rules, 1954 expeditiously within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
Copy of the instructions dated 23.07.2021 has been supplied by the learned Standing Counsel is taken on record.
Vide order dated 13.07.2021, court has granted time to the learned standing counsel for seeking instructions in the matter. In compliance of aforesaid order dated 13.07.2021, learned Standing Counsel submits, on the basis of instructions dated 23.07.2021 received from authority concerned, that against the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kannauj, under Section 42-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, State has filed restoration application dated 05.06.2021, which is pending before the court concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that filing a restoration application against a judicial order does not amount any interim order in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise pendency of restoration application, that too filed at belated stage, does not preclude the authorities concerned from taking adequate steps as required under the law and they are under the legal obligation to implement the judicial order.
The grievance of the petitioner is that order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Consolidation Officer has not been impleaded in the Revenue record, despite the several request has been made by the petitioner in this respect. He has moved an application dated 17.12.2018 supported with an affidavit under Rule 109 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, which is still pending for disposal and same is protracted by the authorities on one or the other pretext. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a legal right to get her record corrected in pursuance of order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
In this conspectus as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, therefore, this court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case as mentioned in the present petition, with a direction to Consolidation Officer (respondent no.2) to consider the application dated 17.12.2018 and decide the same under Rule 109 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules and passed adequate order on the aforesaid application, expeditiously, preferably, within the period of three months from the date in receipt of the aforesaid application.
It is expected that the aforesaid application should be decided by reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting unnecessary adjournments.
It is made clear that the order passed on the application shall be subject to decision as passed by the court competent on the restoration application as mentioned in the instructions of the State Government.
With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Zafar