Heard Sri Siya Ram Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent no.1 and 2 and perused the record.
Instant writ petition has been filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 22.10.2020 (Annexure-9) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda (in brevity 'D.D.C.') (respondent no.1) and the order dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure-7) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Banda (in brevity 'C.O.') (respondent no.2).
Present writ petition is arising out of a proceeding under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act'). It appears that objection filed before the C.O. was ordered to be dismissed in default vide order dated 27.10.1999 (Annexure-1). Against said order, a restoration application dated 08.09.2004 along with delay condonation application was filed, which was allowed vide order dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure-7). Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has prefered revision, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.10.2020 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent no.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 has illegally allowed the restoration application without considering sufficiency of cause in condoning the delay. No explanation has been offered for day to day delay. It is further submitted that the application was allowed on the cost of Rs.600/- but till date said amount has not been deposited by the applicant. It is further submitted that during pendency of the restoration application, the C.O. (respondent no.2) has illegally accepted some of the evidences filed by opposite parties vide its order dated 10.08.20218 which is without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the D.D.C. has illegally affirmed the order passed by the C.O. without considering grievance of the petitioner with respect to condonation of delay and non deposit of cost in pursuance of order passed by the C.O.
Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the C.O. and D.D.C. have not committed any irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned orders and no ground is made out to entertain the present writ petition against the orders passed by them.
Perused the record on board and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
Record reveals that by the order dated 27.10.1999 (Annexure-1) objection was ordered to be dismissed in default and against the said order, a restoration application was filed on 08.09.2004 along with delay condonation application. Aforesaid restoration application was allowed on the cost of Rs.600/-. The D.D.C. (respondent no.1) has considered all the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner in revision and came to a conclusion that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the C.O. (respondent no.2), who has allowed the restoration application on the cost of Rs.600/-. While discussing merits of the restoration application, the D.D.C. has accidentally made an observation with respect to maintainability of the revision, but in my opinion, the said observation is not fatal to the interest of any party and it will not affect the final decision of the revision.
The C.O. and the D.D.C. have allowed the restoration application in positive exercise of jurisdiction and there is no infirmity or irregularity in the proceeding or orders of the subordinate courts, which warrants indulgence of revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner due to the orders passed by the C.O. and the D.D.C. He has failed to substantiate his submissions in support of present petition.
In my opinion, the D.D.C. has rightly affirmed the order passed by the C.O., who has allowed the restoration application and delay condonation application in positive exercise of its jurisdiction and has left open for the parties to get their right and title adjudicated upon at a right platform/before an appropriate forum. There is no illegality, perversity or error in the orders passed by the C.O.
Present writ petition is devoid of merits and, accordingly, it is dismissed.
However, in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the writ petition it is averred that till date cost of Rs.600/- has not been deposited by the contesting respondents in compliance of order dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure-7). It is made clear that the C.O. (respondent no.2) will not proceed with the matter in pursuance of the order dated 31.10.2018, unless cost as imposed by the said order is deposited by the contesting respondents. It is expected from the concerned C.O. that he will decide the objection, in accordance with law, after giving proper and effective opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, without granting any unnecessary adjournments.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 Manish Himwan