Subordinate authorities cannot review final orders from higher authorities under the governing statute; adhering to higher court directives ensures substantial justice is upheld.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard.

2. By means of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow in the proceedings initiated under Rule 65(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short "Rules of 1954"), which was registered as Transfer Application No. 11A/452 of 2022 (R. Review).

3. The order impugned has been assailed only one ground that the Additional Commissioner Consolidation U.P. Lucknow has passed the order dated 27.12.2022, who has no power to review its earlier order as there is no provision under the Statute namely U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act under which, any authority can review its earlier final order.

4. It is stated that during pendency of the transfer application, registered as Transfer Application No. 11A/452 of 2022 (R. Review), under Rule 65(2) of the Rules of 1954, the private opposite party No.2-Surendra Bahardur Singh preferred a petition i.e. Matters Under Article 227 No. 3306 of 2022 for expediting the proceedings of Appeal No. 1394 of 2020 in relation to which the transfer application was preferred by the petitioner and this petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 06.09.2022 directing the respondent No.1, herein, to decide the appeal expeditiously say within a period of six months.

5. After the order of this Court dated 06.09.2022, the application for transfer was allowed vide order dated 13.09.2022 whereby the appeal was transferred from Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ayodhya to Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi.

6. It is stated that pendency of the transfer application was not disclosed by the private opposite party No.2-Surendra Bahadur Singh before this Court. Accordingly, the application for modification/clarification of order dated 06.09.2022 as also for application for impleadment were moved by the petitioner. Both the applications were rejected vide order dated 19.10.2022 and based upon the order of this Court 19.10.2022, the private opposite party No.2-Surendra Bahadur Singh preferred the application for recall of the order dated 13.09.2022.

7. It is also stated that the order dated 13.09.2022 was recalled and thereafter, the opposite parties after taking note of the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, passed the order dated 09.11.2022 and by this order, the appeal pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ayodhya was again transferred to Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi.

8. Thereafter, the review application was preferred by the private opposite party No.2-Surendra Bahadur Singh, which was allowed by the impugned order. In these circumstances particularly when there is no provision of review of final order, the order, under challenge, is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

9. Opposing the present petition for the main relief sought, Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the private opposite party No.2 has submitted that the order impugned dated 27.12.2022 is, in fact, based upon the order of this Court dated 06.09.2022 read with the order dated 19.10.2022 passed on the application i.e. Application for Modification/Clarification of order dated 06.09.2022 as also the Application for Impleadment preferred by the petitioner. As such, the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court.

10. He further submitted that while passing the order dated 09.11.2022, for which an application for recall/review was preferred by private opposite party No.2-Surendra Bahadur Singh on 15.11.2022 before the respondent No.1, the relevant facts particularly the facts related to the orders of th