Advocates:
['SHEO SHANKAR TRIPATHI', '', 'ADYA PRASAD TEWARI', 'C S C']

Court No. - 49

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 613 of 2019

Petitioner :- Nathuni

Respondent :- The Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Shankar Tripathi,Adya Prasad Tewari

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

Vide order dated 18.09.2019, notices were issued to respondent

No.4.

Steps were duly taken by the counsel for the petitioner to serve

the respondent No.4 through R.P.A.D.

Office has submitted his report on 13.1.2020. From perusal of

the office report dated 13.1.2020, notice issued to respondent

no.4 is deemed to be sufficient.

Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that an order

dated 1.5.2013 was passed by the respondent

No.3/Consolidation Officer Kasiya District Kushinagar on the

basis of the report submitted by Consolidator. From perusal of

the aforesaid order, it is clear that no reason has been given. The

aforesaid order was passed ex-parte and without providing

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Against the aforesaid, a

recall application was filed by the petitioner before the

respondent No.3. The aforesaid order was recalled vide order

dated 27.7.2013. The aforesaid order dated 27.7.2013 was

challenged by the respondent No.4 before the respondent

No.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation by filing the appeal

being Appeal No.10/13/18 (Ramanand Vs. Nathuni) as provided

under Section 109(3) framed under the Rules of U.P.

Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as

"the Act, 1953"). The aforesaid appeal was allowed by order

dated 12.6.2015 and the order dated 27.7.2013 passed in favour

of the petitioner was set aside on the ground that the aforesaid

order was ex-parte. The aforesaid order dated 12.6.2015 passed

by the respondent No.2 was challenged by the present

petitioner

before

the

Deputy

Director

of

Consolidation/respondent No.1 by filing a revision as provided

under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953. The aforesaid revision

was dismissed by him vide its judgment and order dated

28.2.2019, copy of which was appended as Annexure No.8 to

the writ petition. By the aforesaid order, the respondent No.1

rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground

that revision was preferred against an interlocatory order by

which the matter was remanded back by the Settlement Officer

of Consolidation before the Consolidation Officer. The

petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the

orders dated 10.5.2013, 12.6.2015 and 28.02.2019 passed by

the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation

and Deputy Director of Consolidation Kushinagar respectively.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing

Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Notice issued to the

respondent No.4 is duly served but no body appears on behalf

respondent No.4.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present, the

matter is decided finally at the admission stage itself.

It appears from perusal of the record that the order dated

10.05.2013 was passed by the respondent No.3 is a non-

speaking order and the same was passed without application of

mind and in complete violation of principles of natural justice.

Though against the order dated 10.5.2013, a recall application

was preferred by the petitioner on 12.7.2013 and the same was

allowed by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 27.7.2013 and

aforesaid order dated 27.7.2013 was also a non-speaking order

and was passed without hearing the parties and without entering

into the merits of the case. It further appears from perusal of the

record that against the order dated 27.7.2013 an appeal was

preferred by the respondent No.4 which was allowed by the

respondent No.2 by which not only the matter was remanded

back before the respondent