Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5372 of 2018 Petitioner :- Surya Kant Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lallan Chaubey,Jaishankar Prasad Tyagi,Lallan Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Grijesh Kumar
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Shri V.D. Yadav, Advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent no.4 in Court today. The same is taken on record.
Respondent no.3 is already represented by Shri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent no.3. However, Shri Brijesh Kumar Pandey has not appeared on the matter being called out.
Counsel for the petitioner states that an impleadment application to bring on record necessary parties has been filed in the Registry on 24.10.2018.
Registry is directed to place this application on record and the same be treated as allowed, as counsel for the respondents has no objection, thereto.
The office shall make necessary correction /incorporation in the array of the parties.
The instant writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Rule 109-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Rules. These proceedings appear to have been drawn to implement orders dated 22.09.2007 and 10.07.2007, passed by consolidation authorities.
It appears that a report as also a correction table was furnished by the subordinate consolidation staff, which was accepted by the Consolidation Officer.
Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed under Rule 109-A (3), which appeal was allowed on the ground that all the affected parties have not been heard. The order under appeal was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for passing a fresh after hearing the parties.
Against this remand order, the petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2018 on the ground that the order impugned before the Revisional Court was an order of remand and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of remand was justified.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the S.O.C. should not have been remanded and could have decided the same itself is of no consequence because the order challenged before the S.O.C. was a clearly ex-parte order. In case the matter was not remanded, an aggrieved party would be deprived of its statutory right of appeal. The contention therefore, cannot be accepted and is hereby, repelled.
Upon hearing counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. In any case, the petitioner cannot be said to be seriously prejudiced by an order of remand specially when the petitioner shall have every opportunity of making his submissions before the Consolidation Officer where the matter stands remanded.
Accordingly, the writ petition is found to be devoid on merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Jitendra