RAJA Vs. D.D.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) Against the order dated 10.6.1983 passed by the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.') in the chak allotment proceedings registered under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), the respondents filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') on 9.2.2009. The appeal was filed almost twenty five years after the order passed by the C.O., and therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also filed by the respondents to condone the delay in filing the said appeal. The explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was that proceedings registered under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 as a result of title dispute regarding the disputed plots were pending before the appropriate consolidation authorities and subsequently before this Court and the said dispute was finally decided in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 28.8.2002 passed by this Court. The S.O.C. vide his order dated 26.10.2009 dismissed the delay condonation application and consequently the appeal filed by the respondents on the ground that the respondents had not satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the appeal.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the S.O.C., the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Revision No. 11 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which was allowed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 12.7.2012 and the matter was remanded back to the S.O.C. to pass fresh orders after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a recall application praying for recall of the order dated 12.7.2012 passed by the D.D.C. on the ground that the order dated 12.7.2012 had been passed without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. The said recall application has been dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 20.2.2014 on the ground that the petitioner had notice of the case and had appeared in the case on 22.9.2011. The orders dated 20.2.2014 and 12.7.2012 passed by the D.D.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition.