Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2746 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shri. Prakash Respondent :- Additional Collector/ Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pathak,Dinesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and Sri R. K. Srivastava, learned counsel has accepted notices on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 26.8.2019 passed by respondent no.1/Additional Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti, copy of which is appended as annexure 9 to the writ petition.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the revision filed by the private respondents before the respondent no.1, the father of the petitioner Ram Harakh was arrayed as respondent and during the pendency of the revision father of the petitioner Ram Harakh died on 23.1.2017, thereafter, a substitution application was filed by the revisionist in the pending revision on 20.3.2017. The said substitution application was allowed by the respondent no.1 on 4.12.2017. It is further argued that without issuing notices to the legal heirs of deceased Ram Harakh, the matter was heard and decided behind back of the petitioner by the respondent no.1 vide its order dated 10.1.2018. In order to recall the aforesaid ex-parte order, recall application was filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.1. The said recall application was rejected by him vide its order dated 26.8.2019, copy of which is appended as annexure 9 to the writ petition. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the fact that notices were not issued to the legal heirs of deceased Ram Harakh findings have been recorded by the respondent no.1 in both the orders namely 10.1.2018 as well as 26.8.2019 that both the parties were heard. This finding is absolutely perverse.
Learned counsel for the private respondents contended that legal heirs of the deceased Ram Harakh were duly heard by the respondent no.1 before passing the order dated 10.1.2018.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Prima facie from perusal of the record it is clear that the order passed by the respondent no.1/Additional Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti dated 10.1.2018 was passed without hearing the petitioner. Although a recall application was filed by the petitioner but wholly illegally the same was also rejected by him vide order dated 26.8.2019. No cogent reasons whatsoever has been given by the respondent no.1 while rejecting the recall application of the petitioner vide its order dated 26.8.2019. The order impugned is absolutely non speaking order and it was passed without any application of mind.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the order dated 26.8.2019 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.
The respondent no.1/Additional Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti, is directed to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournment.
With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Pramod Tripathi