IFTEKHAR Vs. COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.P.S. Yadav holding brief of Shri Zafar Abbas appearing for respondents No. 2 to 6. Both the counsels agree that the writ petition may be finally disposed at this stage.

(2.) By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 22.11.2001 passed by Collector/District Dy. Director of Consolidation. The facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petitioner are; that four revisions were pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, they were revision No. 1 (1291 Aabid Vs. Zuber), revision No. 2 (1417 State Vs. Hakimuddin), revision No. 3 (1418; lftekhar Vs. Hakimuddin) and revision No. 4 (1290; lftekhar Vs. Hazrat) under Sec. 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act. The aforesaid revisions were decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 11.6.2001. After the aforesaid order dated 11.6.2001 four restoration application were filed. The restoration application were filed by respondents Nos. 2, 4, 6 and Gaon Sabha. The District Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the counsel for the applicants who filed the restoration and counsel for the petitioner passed impugned order dated 22.11.2001. The petitioner has come in the writ petition challenging the said order.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that District Director of Consolidation committed error in allowing the restoration applications. According to him the earlier order dated 11.6.2001 was passed after hearing all the parties. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the order dated 11.6.2001 has stated that all the parties have been heard. He has submitted that orders were not ex party. He has further submitted that the Gaon Sabha has already filed a revision which was decided and objection was filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha copy of which has also annexed along with the writ petition as Annexure-8 in which filing of the revision was admitted. He further submitted that there was no prayer for condonation of delay in the restoration applications filed by the all the applicants. The counsel for the petitioner has annexed the copy of the application of restoration filed on behalf of Afsar as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that there being no prayer for condonation of delay, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation committed error in condoning the delay in allowing the restoration application. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that revision of No. 1291 filed by Aabid was ultimately dismissed by the order dated 11.6.2001 and with regard to dismissal of revision respondent No. 6 Izaharul has no right to file any application. It was not going to effect Izaharul and there is no right to file an application to recall the order passed in revision No. 1291 Aabid Vs. Zuber.