High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Dayashankar Tiwari v. The Commissioner Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur & Others - WRIT - B No. 67778 of 2006  RD-AH 20983 (13 December 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67778 of 2006
Daya Shanker Tiwari
Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal Mirzapur and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri M. Shahanshah Khand, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.
This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 41 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act for correction of the boundaries.
Facts are that an application was filed by respondent no. 3 for correction of the boundaries of the land in dispute. Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 10.3.2006 abated the said application on the ground that with regard to the land in dispute some title dispute is pending before consolidation authorities. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no. 3 went up in appeal. Appellate court vide order dated 25.8.2006 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to be decided afresh on merits after opportunity to the concerned parties. Thereafter, an application dated 31.8.2006 was moved by petitioner to recall the said order on the ground that on account of illness he could not appear on the date fixed and the order has been passed exparte behind his back. Application filed by petitioner was dismissed on the ground that since the matter has been remanded back where petitioner will have full opportunity to plead his case as such his rights is not being adversely affected.
It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that appellate order was passed exparte behind his back and is liable to be recalled and the application has wrongly been rejected.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
It is undisputed that application for demarcation filed by respondent no. 3 was abated by Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that some title dispute was pending before consolidation authorities. Appeal filed by respondent no. 3 was allowed on the ground that pendency of title dispute will have no effect on demarcation proceedings and the case was remanded back to be decided afresh. Even if the order of remand was passed exparte without hearing petitioner, in my opinion, appellate court rightly rejected his application on the ground that his rights are not being affected and he has full opportunity to contest the proceedings. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to why and in what manner the order passed by appellate court remanding the case to be decided on merits is factually or legally incorrect.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.