An ex parte order issued against a deceased individual, without notice to affected parties, is invalid and violates principles of procedural fairness.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Ms. Nisha Srivastava learned counsel has filed her Vakalatnama which is taken on record.

2. At the outset, it has been submitted by Ms. Nisha Srivastava that even though the order passed in favour of her client, namely, Ram Kumar passed in Case No. 1267 of 2022 ( Sohan Lal Vs. Ram Kumar ) decided on 28.08.2024 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki has been mentioned in the petition but Ram Kumar in whose favour the order exists has neither been made as a party nor from the pleadings in the writ petition, there is any connectivity to the Case No.1267 of 2022 and the order passed therein dated 28.08.2024 and thus to that extent Ram Kumar is an aggrieved person and must be impleaded as a party.

3. At this stage, a specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioners Vimal Kishor Singh who submits that the copy of the order dated 28.08.2024 which has been annexed as annexure no.3, but he does not challenge the said order and to that extent the contention of Ms. Srivastava is not disputed.

4. He further submits that he has stated in the supplementary-affidavit filed before the Court on 23.10.2024 that the annexure no.3 annexed with the writ petition has wrongly been annexed as he does not propose to challenge it rather the order under challenge is the one by which the application for recall alongwith an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT was rejected.

5. In view of the statement of Shri Vimal Kishor Singh the anxiety of the third party Ram Kumar who is represented by Ms. Srivastava is taken care of.

6. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the State in a suo moto cognizance framed the reference under Section 48 (3) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 bearing No.780 and an order therein was passed on 29.01.2020. It is the case of the petitioners that the property in question belonged to the father of the petitioner, namely, Nanhey who died in the year 2011 thereafter the name of the petitioners was also duly recorded in the revenue records.

7. It is thus contended that if at all the State had to frame the reference then the notice should have gone to the petitioners whose names were duly recorded. However, no notice was issued to the petitioners and rather the notice was issued, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.6 is against Nanhey who as already noticed above had expired.

8. It is thus urged that since no notice was issued to the petitioners hence they could not put their case and thus they moved an application seeking the recall of the order dated 29.01.2020 passed in Reference No.780. This application was moved by the petitioners on 14.06.2022. The said application came to be dismissed by means of order dated 09.02.2024, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.2.

9. Instead of assailing this order, the petitioners under ill advise moved a fresh application for recall, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.8 dated 27.04.2024. Thereafter this second application for recall was rejected on 28.08.2024 and this order has been brought on record as annexure no.3 but it may not be confused with the order which is passed in Case No.1127of 2024. This subsequent order rejecting the recall has been placed on record alongwith the supplementary-affidavit dated 23.10.2024 and for the aforesaid reason that the first recall had already been dismissed on 09.02.2024, the second also came to be rejected.

10. The only s