Court No. - 32

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 910 of 2022

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Dwivedi

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 29 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Narain Rai,Arvind Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.K. Shukla,Rajeev Kumar Sharma

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

Supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner, is

taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for

respondent no. 4 and 23 as well as learned Standing Counsel

representing respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 31.

Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this

court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India by way of

filing the instant writ petition challenging the order dated

22.03.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Hamirpur. Second prayer has been made to quash the order

dated 26.02.2020 passed by Settlement Officer of

Consolidation, Hamirpur and all the orders passed by

Consolidation Officer in consequences to the order dated

26.02.2020.

Instant writ petition is arising out of restoration application

moved on behalf of contesting respondent in proceeding u/s

9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity

U,P,C.H. Act). Facts culled out from the averment made in the

writ petition are that during the consolidation operation order

dated 4.10.1975 was passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer

in Case No. 3912 u/s 9A(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. Aforesaid order

was assailed in appeal being appeal no. 376 of 2005 u/s 11(1) of

U.P.C.H. Act. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide it's

order dated 06.10.2006, has set aside the order dated 4.10.1975

and remitted the matter before the Consolidation Officer to

decide it afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the

parties. After remand, Consolidation Officer has passed the

order dated 20.09.2007 under section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act.

Against the order dated 20.09.2007, highly belated recall

application dated 7.05.2018 has been moved on behalf of

contesting respondent. During pendency of the recall

application, notification u/s 6(1) of UPCH Act was promulgated

on 24.09.2018. Considering the cancellation of consolidation

operation, Consolidation Officer has passed order dated

27.02.2019 to abate the proceedings of restoration application

as well as entire case. Feeling aggrieved against the abatement

order 27.02.2019, contesting respondent has preferred appeal

before the Settlement Officer by consolidation which was

allowed and remanded, vide order dated 26.02.2020, to decide

the restoration application dated 7.5.2018 moved by contesting

respondent. Having aggrieved with the order dated 26.2.2020,

the present petitioner has preferred revision which was

dismissed by impugned order dated 22.03.2022. It is apposite to

mention that during pendency of revision, Consolidation

Officer has passed an order dated 27.8.2021 recalling the order

dated 20.09.2007, consequently, restoration application moved

by contesting respondent was allowed and the entire proceeding

under section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was abated. Aforesaid fact

was brought to the knowledge of the Deputy Director of

Consolidation, who has considered the said fact in his

impugned order dated 22.03.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before filing the

recall application dated 7.5.2018, the land in question comes

within the periphery of town area by virtue of notification dated

28.12.2016, therefore, Consolidation Courts have got no

jurisdiction to entertain any application with respect to the plot

in question. It is further submitted that Deputy Director of

Consolidation has illegally treated the remand order as an

interlocutory order, whereas revision against the remand order

is maintainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted that

order dated 27.08.2021 passed by Consolidation Officer will

not effect the revisi