Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5223 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajjak Husen Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shailendra Singh connect with Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5226 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajjak Husen Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shailendra Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard counsel for the parties.
When this petition initially come up for admission, the following order was passed on 04.10.2018 :
"The instant writ petition is directed against the order rejecting a recall application. This recall application sought recall of an order passed by the Consolidation Officer in case No. 582 of 2001, under Section 9-A (2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. By this order, respondent No. 4 was ordered to be mutated in place of her deceased father.
The recall application was filed in the year 2017 alleging that the petitioner had no knowledge of this order and that he came to know about the first time when proceedings for its implementation was drawn by the opposite party.
The recall application was dismissed holding that twice the matter had been remanded back, first, by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide the order dated 07.06.1999. The order of remand to the Settlement Officer Consolidation was passed after hearing the parties and 22.06.1999 was fixed for appearance before the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
Secondly, the Settlement Officer Consolidation thereafter remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, again by fixing the date for appearance before the Consolidation Officer. The impugned order dated 31.01.2001 of the Consolidation Officer has been passed in pursuance of the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Consolidation Officer has decided the objection after issuing the notices to the respondents therein and after due publication.
Under the circumstances, since twice order of remand had been passed fixing specific dates for appearance of the parties before the court concerned, in pursuance of the remand order, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that he has no knowledge of the proceedings or of the order dated 03.01.2001 cannot be accepted.
However, counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted one last opportunity to prepare his case further.
Put up this case on 09.10.2018 along with connected Writ Petition No. 5226 of 2018."
Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show anything which would persuade this Court to take a view contrary to that recorded in the order dated 04.10.2018.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly, dismissed.
The other writ petition namely Writ Petition No.5226 of 2018, arises out the proceedings for implementation of the order of the Consolidation Officer passed in favour of the respondent.
Since, the Writ Petition No.5223 of 2018, which is directed against the orders refusing to recall the order of the Consolidation Officer passed in favour of the respondents and which petition has been dismissed above, there can be no illegality in the orders impugned in this writ petition No.5226 of 2018, which are essentially in proceedings drawn to implement the order passed in favour of the respondents, which stand affirmed on dismissal of Writ Petition No.5223 of 2018.
Accordingly and on account of dismissal of Writ Petition No.5223 of 2018, this writ petition is also liable to be and is hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Jitendra