The court upheld the validity of a restoration application allowed after 15 years, emphasizing the importance of providing parties an opportunity to present their case in consolidation proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.7-Gaon Sabha.

2.Brief facts of the case are that two separate revision filed by petitioner as well as one Ram Autar were allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide common order dated 12.03.1993. Against the order dated 12.03.1993 a restoration application was filed by the petitioner on 23/ 25.04.2005 along with separate application for condonation of delay. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 22.06.2006 granted benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as allowed the restoration application dated 23/ 25.04.2005 filed by petitioner and modified the earlier order dated 12.03.1993 to the extent of allotment of plot No.486, 487 and 486 to the petitioner affecting the interest of respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 and reserved certain area of the aforementioned plot as chak marg. Against the order dated 22.06.2006 restoration application dated 20.03.2021 has been filed by respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 along with prayer for condonation of delay for recalling the order dated 22.06.2006. The aforementioned restoration application has been allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 15.02.2024 after granting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act setting aside the earlier order dated 22.06.2006 and restored restoration application dated 23/ 25.04.2005 filed by the petitioner for fresh decision in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 22.06.2006 was passed after hearing the parties, as such the restoration application at the instance of the private respondents after delay of about 15 years cannot be entertained. He further submitted that Consolidation Courts have no power to review his judgment passed on merit . He further submitted that delay of 15 years has been condoned in arbitrary manner, as such the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 be set aside and earlier order dated 22.06.2006 be affirmed. He further submitted that further hearing of restoration application dated 23/25.04.2005 is abuse of process of law.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has decided the chak revision filed by petitioner on 12.03.1993 on merit, as such restoration application filed by petitioner was illegally allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by passing order dated 22.06.2006 against dead person. He further submitted that revision has been allowed on merit vide order dated 12.03.1993 as such the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot modify the order dated 12.03.1993 which was passed on merit. He further submitted that under the impugned order, the subsequent order dated 22.06.2006 has been set aside and restoration application of the petitioner has been restored for fresh decision in accordance with law, as such no interference is required in the matter.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that in allotment of chak proceeding, the chak revision filed by petitioner was initially allowed in the year 1993. There is no dispute about the fact that after 15 years, a restoration application filed by the petitioner has been allowed and earlier order dated 12.03.1993 has been modified vide order dated 22.06.2006. There is also no dispute about the fact that restoration application dated 20.03.2021 filed by respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 has been been allowed after granting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act vide order dated 15.02.2024 setting aside the earlier order dated 22.06.2006 and restored the restoration application dated 23/25.04.2005 filed by the petitioner for fresh decision in accordance with law.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy