Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3276 of 2018 Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Agra And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Viveka Nand Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present petition is directed against the order dated 6.2.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.31 of 2018 (Raj Kumar Saini v. Suresh Chandra & Ors.). The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a categorical finding of fact has been recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the order dated 13.10.2014 for setting aside the order dated 23.1.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer regarding the service of notice upon the petitioner. The same could not have been set aside by the Revisional Court. On the strength of the order dated 9.1.2012, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the next date fixed in the matter was 2.2.2012 and 23.1.2012 when the recall application filed by the respondents was allowed, was not the date fixed. Submission is that the recall application was illegally allowed vide order dated 23.1.2012 by preponing the date fixed in the matter. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that on 9.1.2012, time for filing objection was sought by the learned counsel for the recall-applicant/i.e. the petitioner herein which was duly granted.
Further, it is relevant to note that the order dated 13.10.2014 was passed on the premise that the recall-applicant/the petitioner herein namely Suresh Chandra was not served with the summon. There was no signature of the recall-applicant or his counsel on the order sheet dated 23.1.2012. On the other hand, the order dated 9.1.2012 categorically records that the recall applicant namely Suresh Chandra was represented by his counsel. As this fact was not noticed in the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Appellate Court, the Revisional Court cannot be said have erred in setting aside the same remitting the matter back.
In any case, on the question of notice to the petitioner namely the recall-applicant, appearance of his counsel and the objection of the petitioner regarding preponing the date fixed on 9.1.2012, it is still open for him to place his submissions before the Appellate Court.
However, in order to bring the controversy to its logical end, the present petition is being disposed of with the direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra to make an endeavour to decide the recall application moved by the petitioner Suresh Chandra keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove as also in the order of the Revisional Court.
It is made clear that due opportunity of hearing shall be granted to all the affected parties and the direction given herein to expedite the recall application would not be treated as a tool to proceed ex-parte against the unserved opposite parties.
Order Date :- 23.3.2018 Jyotsana