JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Baghel, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State.

2. By means of the present petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7th September, 2021 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) II, Bareilly Division, Bareilly thereby rejecting the recall application moved by the petitioner.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner along with certain other persons was eligible for being granted agricultural patta and consequently after following due procedure wherein his name was included in the final list prepared by Land Management Committee by means of order dated 20.5.2010 and a patta was granted by Sub Divisional Magistrate in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said patta name of the petitioner was duly mutated in the revenue records with bhumidiari with non-transferable rights and since then he is in possession of the said land. Subsequently, by a report of Lekhpa dated 22.12.2010 it was stated that it is due to clerical error that the name of the petitioner was entered into revenue record as patta holder wrongly while his name could not have been included . The ex-parte order dated 22.12.2010 was passed which was registered under Section 33 /39 of U.P. Land Revenue Code before the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Fareedpur, Bareillly. The aforesaid officer proceeded to pass ex-parte order deleting the entires made in favour of the petitioner in the revenue records by means of order dated 31.3.2011.

4. It has been submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 31.3.2011 name of the petitioner as well as first patta holders were deleted from the revenue records. The petitioner on coming to know of the order dated 31.3.2011 preferred revision before Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly which was registered as revision No.122/2011. Subsequently considering the entire matter, an interim order was also granted in favour of the petitioner for maintaining status quo but in the interregnum period during pendency of the revision the consolidation proceedings were commenced by publication of notice under Section 4(a) 2 of CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT and on commencement of consolidation proceedings the consolidation the revision preferred by the petitioner abated. It is further submitted that consolidation proceedings with regard to the village of the petitioner did not continue and notification was issued under Section 6 (1) of the CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT separating the petitioner’s village from the consolidation proceedings as a consequence to which status-quo ante was maintained. When the consolidation proceedings dropped the petitioner moved application for recall and for restoration of the revisional order pending before the Additional Commissioner. This application for recall was considered by Additional Commissioner who by means of the impugned order has rejected the same.

5. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the court of Additional Commissioner considered the revision as well as all relevant facts necessary for setting aside the abatement proceedings before him but instead of deciding the restoration application, proceeded to hear the matter on merits and rejected the same. From a perusal of the orders sheet it seems that that the claim of the petitioner that was existing was not considered nor any other document was taken into consideration and consequently entire proceedings are liable to be set aside.

6. I have considered the arguments raised by the petitioner and perused the record.

7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has submitted th