Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No.3 and 4 is dispensed with.
The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking quashing of the order dated 02.09.2018 passed by S.D.O., In case No.06882/2018 instituted under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 21.12.2018, which is the report by the Revenue Inspector.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of Gata No.429, the petitioner along with the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 are recorded tenure-holders. The petitioner has purchased the property by means of a sale-deed and has a separate share. The private opposite parties no.3 and 4 surreptitiously made an application though the petitioner did not sign the said application nor she had any intention to join the private opposite parties in the said application.
On the aforesaid application, the case was registered and the Revenue Inspector gave his report dated 09.12.2018 wherein he did not find any boundary dispute, but the report was maneuvered and it was indicated that the petitioner was on larger area than she had purchased. Relying upon the said report of the Revenue Inspector, the S.D.O., by means of the order dated 02.09.2019 instead of deciding any demarcation dispute actually entered into the process of dividing the shares which could only be done in a suit for partition under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
In the garb of the aforesaid, the petitioner was being harassed and she made an application before the S.D.O., bringing on record the fact that she was neither the party nor she has instituted the aforesaid, yet behind her back by playing a fraud, the impugned orders have been passed, though the application remained pending. In the meantime, the petitioner has been dispossessed.
Considering the facts and circumstances and also for the reasons that the petitioner has an adequate remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned orders and moreover her application for recall is already engaging attention of the opposite party no.2 and it involves disputed question which requires evidence, accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that instead of keeping the aforesaid petition pending, ends of justice can be served by directing the opposite party No.2 to consider and decide the recall application filed by the petitioner, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.8 with the petition, most expeditiously after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties preferably within a period of 45 days from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned without granting unnecessary adjournment except in exceptional circumstances.
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case of merits and the authority concerned shall decide the case on its own merits.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.1.2021 Rakesh/-