Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 771 of 1985 Petitioner :- Raghu Respondent :- D.D.C.And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar,Vivek Shandilya Counsel for Respondent :- SC,Sankatha Rai
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Shri Vivek Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. V.K. Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. An order dated 21.12.1981 was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 384 registered under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'). The petitioner filed restoration application praying that the said order be recalled and the grounds stated in the restoration application were that the petitioner was under treatment and admitted in Jhansi Medical College, Jhansi from 16.12.1981 to 25.12.1981 and that the order dated 21.12.1981 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and was an ex-parte order against the petitioner. In the restoration application, the petitioner had also stated that summons in Revision No. 384 were not served on him and the signatures on the alleged summons issued to the petitioner in the aforesaid case were not his signatures as, at that time, the petitioner, due to his illness, was putting his thumb impression on different documents and was not putting his signatures on the same. It appears that during the proceedings on the restoration application, the records of Revision No. 515 instituted by the petitioner were summoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') who on examining the said records found that the petitioner had put his signatures on the Vakalatnama as well as on the order- sheet of Revision No. 515 and the said signatures were similar to the signatures on the summons issued to the petitioner in Revision No. 384. The D.D.C. concluded that the averments made by the petitioner in his restoration application denying his signatures on the summons were false, and therefore, rejected the restoration application filed by the petitioner vide his order dated 22.9.1984. The order dated 22.9.1984 passed by the D.D.C. has been challenged in the present writ petition.
3. It is evident that in the restoration application the petitioner, apart from pleading that the summons in Revision No. 384 were not served on him, had also alleged that he was admitted in Jhansi Medical College, Jhansi from 16.12.1981 to 25.12.1981. The order was passed by the Deputy Director on 21.12.1981. It appears from the records and from a reading of the order dated 22.9.1984 passed by the D.D.C. that the plea of the petitioner regarding his illness and the fact that he was admitted in Jhansi Medical College, Jhansi on the relevant dates was not disputed by respondent No. 2. In his impugned order dated 22.9.1984 the D.D.C. has not examined the said explanation given by the petitioner in his restoration application explaining his absence. Assuming that the findings of the D.D.C. regarding the genuineness of the signatures of the petitioner on the summons served on him are correct, even then the petitioner had satisfactorily explained his absence in the proceedings in Revision No. 384. For the aforesaid reason, the order dated 22.9.1984 is vitiated due to non- consideration of relevant materials and is liable to be set aside.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22.9.1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun, i.e., respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 384 is hereby set aside.
5. It would be futile and would serve no useful purpose to remand back the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun, i.e., respondent No. 1 to pass fresh orders on the restoration application filed by the petitioner and therefore, the restoration application filed by the petitioner is being allowed merely to avoid any technicalities before the Court below. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun, i.e., respondent No. 1 to pass fresh orders in Revision No. 384 on merits and in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Till fresh orders are passed by the D.D.C. in Revision No. 384, the parties shall maintain status quo regarding the disputed plots.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 Anurag/-