RAM NARESH Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Sri M.P.S. Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5. Since all the parties are represented in both the writ petitions, both these writ petitions have been considered on merits today itself and are being decided finally. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 10.02.2012 passed by respondent no.1, the Deputy Director Consolidation, Badaun whereby recall application filed by the respondent no.5, Sukhbir, has been allowed and the exparte order dated 27.05.2005 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation in the same Revision No.377 of 2005, has been set aside and the revision has been restored to its original number.

(2.) ACCORDING to Sri Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Settlement Officer Consolidation had passed an order dated 22.01.2005, where against the revision no.377 of 2005 was filed before the Deputy Director Consolidation, Badaun which was decided by an order dated 27.05.2005 and against the order dated 27.05.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Writ Petition no.46383 of 2005 (Ram Naresh vs. D.D.C. and others) was filed by the petitioner, wherein by the order dated 24.11.2009, as corrected by the order dated 05.02.2010, the order dated 22.01.2005 of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the same again. Sri Yadav submits that the Settlement Officer Consolidation, upon remand from this court has decided the appeal by his order dated 11.08.2010 where against, the petitioner or the respondents have not filed any revision or writ petition and as such, the order dated 11.10.2008 of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, has attained finality. ACCORDING to Sri Yadav, when the Revision No. 377 of 2005 was itself filed against the order dated 22.01.2005 of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the order dated 22.01.2005 of the Settlement Officer Consolidation has been set aside by the High Court in writ petition no.46383 of 2005, then the revision no. 377 of 2005 filed against that order became infructuous on 24.11.2009 and could not have been restored by the impugned order dated 18.02.2012. ACCORDING to him, the impugned order whereby the revision no. 377 of 2005 has been restored, requires to be set aside. Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, admits the facts as stated by Sri Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) IN view of above, both the writ petitions are allowed and the order impugned dated 10.02.2012 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation, is set aside. No order is passed as to costs.