The court emphasized the necessity of providing all parties an adequate opportunity to be heard in judicial proceedings, ruling that procedural irregularities render decisions unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Shri Jai Pal Singh learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.3 who has filed a counter-affidavit which is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has received the copy of the counter-affidavit but he does not propose to file any rejoinder-affidavit since the facts stated in the writ petition could not be effectively controverted even in the counter-affidavit.

3. In view of the aforesaid, the Court has proceeded to hear the parties and with their consent, the petition is being decided finally.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 is that he had initiated proceedings under Section 32/38 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006. Since certain orders were passed in favour of the petitioner during the consolidation operations but they were not duly reflected in the revenue record, consequently this prompted the petitioner to move the said application, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.1.

5. It is further urged that while the said application remained pending with the respondent no.1, the private respondent no.3 had moved an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation challenging the order dated 24.10.1996. Initially, the said appeal was allowed in favour of the private respondent no.3, however, upon making an application for recall, the same was allowed. This was assailed by the private respondent no.3 before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-B No.635 of 2023 (Nawab Ali Vs. State of U.P. & others) which came to be finallydisposed of by means of judgment dated 16.10.2023, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.7.

6. The contention is that since the order of recall in favour of the petitioner was against the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Anarkali and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1997 (15) LCD page 921, hence the counsel for the petitioner had submitted before the Co-ordinate Bench that the writ petition of private respondent be allowed and the petitioner may be granted the liberty of assailing the order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is urged that in view thereof the petitioner had filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which is still pending as of till date.

7. In light of the aforesaid subsequent events, the basic purpose of the application which was moved before the respondent no.1 under Section 32/38 of the Revenue Code 2006 has lost its significance as the matter was now seized before the Consolidation Authorities and it is in this backdrop that the petitioner had requested that in case if the said application is kept in abeyance subject to the orders to be passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, it is urged that the said matter was initially heard by the respondent no.1 on 13.03.2024. It is stated that on the said date, the application under Section 10 CPC was onlyheard and not the entire matter on merits and thereafter it was fixed for orders on 22.03.2024.

8. It is further submitted that the entire order sheets have been brought on record which will reflect that no orders on the application under Section 10 CPC were passed on 22.03.2024 rather subsequent dates were being fixed as shall be evident from the extract of the order sheets which have been brought on record as annexure no.10.

9. It is also submitted that on 28.05.2024 the respondent no.1 recorded in its order that the matter had been heard earlier and since the file was covered by certain directions of the High Court, hence only one opportunity is granted to the parties to present their case fixing 29.05.2024. On 29.05.2024, none of the parties were present before the Court concerned and thereafter it was fixed for orders on 31.03.2024 and thereafter the orde