The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents no.1, 2 & 5, Shri. Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4/Gaon Sabha, and Shri. Anand Dubey & Shri. Prashant Dubey, learned counsels for the private-respondent no. 3.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 29.05.2018, Annexure No. 2 to the petition, passed by the respondent no.2/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bheeti, District Ambedkar Nagar in Case No. T-20170446705572 (Shreeprakash v. Jashraj and Ors.) registered under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Code, 2006").

3. Vide order dated 29.05.2018, the respondent no. 2 allowed the application dated 11.08.2017 for recall of order dated 10.08.2017 preferred by the respondent no.3/Shree Prakash on 27.10.2017 and also the application dated 29.05.2018 for recall of order dated 10.08.2017 preferred by the the respondent no.4/Gaon Sabha and set aside the order dated 10.08.2017, whereby the restoration application dated 20.04.2016 preferred by one Shree Prakash (respondent no. 3) on 26.07.2016 was dismissed for want of prosecution, and also set aside the final order dated 22.12.1990, Annexure No. 3 to the petition, passed in Suit No. 218/273/66/252 instituted by the predecessors-in interest of the petitioners under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1950") and posted the matter for disposal of application for restoration of case dated 20.04.2016 preferred on 26.05.2016 by the respondent no.3.

4. The petitioners have also assailed the order dated 27.09.2021, Annexure No. 1 to the petition, passed by respondent no. 1/Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, whereby respondent no.1 dismissed the revision registered as Case No. 02224 of 2018 (Jashraj and Ors. v. Shreeprakash and Ors.), under Section 333 of Act of 1950 filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 29.05.2018.

5. Assailing the impugned order(s) dated 27.09.2021 and 29.05.2018 passed by the respondents no. 1 and 2, respectively, submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners are as under:

(i) The application of respondent no. 3/Shree Prakash, a villager, for recall of the order dated 22.12.1990 itself was not maintainable as name of the respondent no. 3 was never indicated in the revenue records and as such in allowing the said application for recall of order dated 10.08.2017, the respondent no. 2 committed patent illegality particularly without availability of records of regular suit instituted under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950.

(ii) The application dated 29.05.2018 was preferred by respondent no.4/Gaon Sabha Pakri with the prayer to recall the order dated 10.08.2017 and as such in this view of the matter in setting aside the final order dated 22.12.1990, whereby the suit instituted under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950 was decreed, the respondent no. 2 committed patent illegality and irregularity in passing the order dated 29.05.2018.

(iii) The final order dated 22.12.1990 in the case instituted under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950 was passed on merits as such the restoration application itself was not maintainable more particularly when the Gaon Sabha filed its written statement and was heard by the authority concerned.

(iv) As per the impugned order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2, the application for restoration/recall of final order dated 22.12.1990 preferred on 26.05.2016 was to be heard on 04.06.2018 and being so, in setting aside the order dated 22.12.1990, the respondent no. 2 committed illegality.

(v) The judgment of the Trial Court in a regular suit no. 97 of 1983 (Jashraj Mishra and Ors. v. Gaon Sabha) is also favourable to the petitioners and as per the same, the predecessors-in interest of petitioners were entitled to the relief sought in the suit institu