Office Notes,

reports, orders

SL. or proceedings or

Date COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No. directions and

Registrar’s order with Signatures

WPMS/ 2105/ 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Mukesh Kaparuwan, Advocate holding brief

of Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, Standing Counsel for

the State.

Mr. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, Senior Advocate

assisted by Dr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate for the

respondents.

2. Petitioner has challenged order dated 19.05.2025 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar in Revision No. 05 of 2024-25. By the said order, Revision filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as not

maintainable.

3. It transpires that petitioner had filed an application seeking recall of an ex parte order dated 28.07.1992 passed by Consolidation Officer, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar in proceedings under Section 9A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The said application was allowed by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 08.02.2022. Thereafter, respondents moved an application before the Consolidation Officer for seeking recall of order dated 08.02.2022, which was also allowed vide order dated 28.06.2023. Petitioner thereafter preferred a revision under Section 48 of the aforesaid Act, which was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that after issuance of notification under Section 52 of the Act, an application seeking recall of an order passed in consolidation proceedings is not maintainable. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has

approached this Court challenging the order passed by Revisional Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Bahadur Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in (1972) 12 AHC CK 0009. Paras 2 & 3 of the said judgment are extracted below:

“2. The issuance of the Notification does not, however affect the orders passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court under the provisions of the Constitution of India or in cases or proceedings pending under this Act ort the date of issue of notification under Sub-section (1) and orders passed will have to be given effect to notwithstanding anything contained in the Notification. In Dilawar Singh Vs. The Gram Samaj and Others, the Division Bench observed that the term "proceedings" in Section 52 (2) has been used in the comprehensive sense of proceedings commencing from the one which is initiated before the Consolidation Officer and including that taken in the appeal Court It was held that an appeal does not initiate a fresh proceeding. On the institution of the appeal the proceedings, which had become dormant on the decision of the trial Court, revive and remain pending, the only difference being that they are now pending in a different Court, namely, the Court of appeal. It was also held that the notification u/s 52 (1) does not have the effect of destroying vested rights of the litigants. For instance, if a litigant has a right of appeal against a particular order he can exercise it notwithstanding the publication of the notification u/s 52 (1) and the moment an appeal is filed the effect in law is that the original proceedings stand revived.

3. In our opinion the principle laid down in this case is applicable to an application for setting aside an ex parte order. Section 41 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act makes the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U.P. Land Revenue Act applicable to all proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Sections 200 and 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are in Chapter IX. Section 200 provides that, whenever any party to such proceeding neglects to attend on the day specified in the summons, or on any day to which the case may have been postponed, the Court may dismiss the case for default or may hear and determine it ex parte. Section 201 says that no appeal shall lie from an order passed u/s 200 ex parte or by default. That section provides