AMBIKA PRASAD Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mazhar Abbas Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has appeared through video conferencing. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Shiv Dayal Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 7, at admission stage.

(2.) Petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Basti (respondent no.1) exercising his power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act") in Revision No.459 of 2020 (Computerized No.D-202017140001798) (Suit No.01798 of 2020) (Ambika Prasad and Others vs. Smt. Savitri Devi and Others) and order dated 09.01.20215 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Basti (in brevity "S.O.C.")(respondent no.3) in Appeal No.120 under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act.

(3.) Present writ petition is arising out of proceeding under section 12 of UPCH Act. Dispute relates to property belongs to one Hari Prasad. Plot in question i.e. Khata No.407 situated in village Shankarpur was recorded in the name of Hari Prasad. After his death name of Ramsuresh @ Ramduresh (predecessor in interest of the petitioners) was ordered to be recorded in the revenue record vide order dated 30.01.1982 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (in brevity "A.C.O."). After lapse of 29 years, Smt. Savitri Devi (predecessor in interest of respondent nos.4 to 7) had filed an appeal dated 16.07.20210 (annexure no.2) under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, challenging the order dated 30.01.1982 on the ground that it was ex-parte order passed behind her back without giving her any opportunity of hearing. In appeal she had prayed condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Vide order dated 09.01.2015(annexure no.5), the S.O.C. has allowed the prayer for condonation of delay and fixed date for hearing on the merits of the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, present petitioners have preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity "D.D.C.") (respondent no.2), which has been dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2021 (Annexure-8), with an observation that there is no force in the revision, which is in fact not maintainable against an interlocutory order.