Administrative authorities cannot recall judicial orders without due process, and principles of natural justice require a hearing before adverse actions affecting rights.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record on board.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed hereinunder, this Court proceeded to decide the instant writ petition finally at admission stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents without calling for their respective affidavits.

3. The petitioner has shown his grievance against the ex-parte orders dated 4.10.2023 and 11.10.2023 passed by Consolidation Officer (respondent No. 3) behind his back sans opportunity of hearing accorded to him. For ready reference, orders dated 4.10.2023 and 11.10.2023, which are under challenge before this Court, are quoted hereinbelow:-

Order Dated: 4.10.2023

Order Dated: 11.10.2023

4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifested that, vide order dated 2.3.2012 passed by Consolidation Officer in Case No. 381 under Section 9A(2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity, 'UPCH Act'), the land in question was ordered to be recorded in favour of the present petitioner along with other co-sharers. At subsequent stage, the tenure holders, in whose favour the order dated 2.3.2012 has been passed, have moved an appropriate application under Rule 109 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Rules (in brevity, 'UPCH Rules') for giving effect to the order dated 2.3.2012 in the consolidation record. On the said application, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has submitted report dated 2.6.2023 acknowledging the order dated 2.3.2012 passed in the proceeding under Section 9 A(2) of UPCH Act. Having considered the report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, learned Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 11.8.2023 approving the report dated 2.6.2023 and, accordingly, Parvana has been issued on 22.8.2023 for correction of record. In pursuance thereof, R6 has been prepared by Assistant Consolidation Officer under Rule 109 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Rules on 25.8.2023. At later stage, UP Zila Adhikari, Budhanpur, in administrative side, has made a communication dated 16.10.2023 being letter No. 792/Ra.Ka. to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for quashing the order dated 11.8.2023. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, in turn, has made communication dated 6.11.2023. The Consolidation Officer, in pursuance of the letter dated 6.11.2023 issued by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, has passed an order dated 4.10.2023 (Annexure No. 1) recalling the order dated 11.8.2023. Subsequently, the order dated 11.10.2023 has been passed as well for deleting the endorsement of order dated 2.3.2012 from consolidation record, which has been passed in judicial proceeding under Section 9 A(2) of UPCH Act.

5. This Court noted with utmost surprise, how consolidation authorities have defied the judicial process in recalling the order dated 11.8.2023 and deleting the endorsement of order dated 2.3.2012 passed under Section 9A(2) of UPCH Act from the land record. Consolidation Officer has passed the order impugned dated 4.10.2023 and 11.10.2023 on the basis of a letter issued by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, in administrative capacity. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer have overstepped their authority by recalling a judicial order while acting in their administrative capacities. They have inherent lack of authority/jurisdiction to recall the judicial order in exercise of their power in administrative capacity. Even otherwise, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the present petitioner and other co-tenure holders, who are adversely affected due to the orders impugned dated 4.10.2023 and 11.10.2023. Valuable rights arose in favour of the tenure holders in pursuance of the judicial order dated 2.3.2012 passed unde