High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Uma Shanker & Another v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation/Addl.Colletor(Admin.) & Others - WRIT - B No. 40054 of 2006  RD-AH 13576 (17 August 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40054 of 2006
Uma Shanker & Another .............Petitioners
Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector (Administration),Gorakhpur & Others...........Respondents
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under;
The land in dispute was recorded in the name of one Ram Dhuri son of Nageshar. During consolidation operation, the petitioners filed an objection that they are in possession over the land in dispute and the name of Ram Dhuri be expunged and their names to be recorded. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.5.1972 allowed the objection of the petitioner. After a lapse of considerable time, the contesting respondents no. 2 and 3 filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, vide order dated 19.6.2000. The petitioners went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the said order. The revisional Court allowed the revision vide order dated 7.1.2005. Feeling aggrieved, contesting respondents filed an application to recall the said order on the ground that it was passed ex parte without hearing them. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 19.5.2006 allowed the restoration application, against which the present writ petition has been filed.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that order dated 7.1.2005 was passed after hearing the parties and as such restoration application was not maintainable. It has also been urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the revision after both the parties had filed their written arguments and as such the said order cannot be said to be an ex parte order.
In reply, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents has tried to justify the impugned order.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It has been held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that after registration of revision no notice was issued to the respondents. A further finding has been recorded that vakalatnama of Prem Narayan Lal Srivastava, Advocate is only on behalf of respondent no.2 Paras and thus respondent no. 3 Naras was not represented by him and as such the entire proceedings of revision were drawn ex parte against him. In so far as, the restoration application filed by respondent no. 2 is concerned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that since the order is liable to be recalled at the behest of respondent no. 3 as such it would be in the interest of justice that respondent no. 2 may also be allowed opportunity of fresh hearing.
In view of the findings of fact recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the order dated 7.1.2005 was passed ex parte without issuing summon or notice to respondent no. 3, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order.
The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.