Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, Advocate has accepted notice for the respondent No.4.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya in Revision No.01066/2019 under Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act by means of which the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed and the order passed by the court below dated 05.07.2000 has been affirmed and the order dated 05.07.2000 has also been assailed in this petition.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a landless labourer, who has been in possession of the property in question since prior to the year 1989. Initially, a suit under Section 229-B read with Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was instituted. The said suit came to be decreed ex-parte on 23.06.1989.
Thereafter, an application was moved by Gaon Sabha on 21.07.1990 seeking recall of the ex-parte judgment dated 23.06.1989 and also a prayer was made for condoning the delay in preferring the application. Initially, the said application came to be rejected. The Gaon Sabha thereafter preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue allowed the application and remanded the matter back to the S.D.O., to consider the application once again and after considering the issue on delay as well as after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the matter be decided.
In pursuance of the said order passed by the Board of Revenue, on 05.07.2020, the S.D.O., after hearing the parties and finding that there is sufficient cause it condoned the delay and also set aside the judgment dated 23.06.1989 while allowing the application of Gaon Sabha. It also recorded a finding that since the petitioner while instituting the suit under Section 229-B had not issued a notice under Section 80(1) CPC. Consequently, it also exempted the petitioner from service of notice and directed that the matter be decided on merits. It is this order dated 05.07.2020 which was assailed before the Additional Commissioner in revision.
The revisional Court has also considered all aspect of the matter and finding that the matter has been directed to be heard on merit has refused to intervene.
In the aforesaid backdrop, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been in possession of the disputed land in question since more than three decades. As the ex-parte order dated 23.06.1989 has been set aside, the petitioner would be subjected to dispossession and the State authorities will interfere in the possession and in the aforesaid circumstances even though the petitioner has been relegated to contest the case on merits yet there is no adequate protection for the petitioner.
The Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has also perused the record.
Apparently, from the perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that there is no error inasmuch as the Court has considered that the Gaon Sabha was prevented by sufficient cause from contesting the proceedings and also the cause shown was found to be sufficient. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders.
Be that as it may, considering the apprehension as alleged by the petitioner, it is observed that the petitioner has adequate remedy of making an application before the Court concerned under Section 229-D of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. In case, such an application is moved by the petitioner, the Court concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.2.2021 Rakesh/-