HARINATH SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Nagesh Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Mahesh Narain Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4. Gram Panchayat.

(2.) NOTICE need not be issued to respondents no. 5 to 10 in view of the order being passed herein. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner Administration, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in Appeal No. 87 of 2001, Girja Shankar Shukla and another vs. Hari Nath Shukla and others, whereby an earlier order dated 14.09.2001 passed in restoration application no. 12/31 of 2000 filed in original suit no. 75 of 2000, Hari Nath Shukla vs. Chandrama Shukla and others, under Section 229-B of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') has been set aside and the matter has been remitted to the trial court by framing an issue which has to be decided on merits after evidence is taken from the parties.

(3.) HAVING considered the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record it appears that the exparte decree was passed on? 23.08.2000 where against the respondents filed restoration application which was rejected by the order dated 14.09.2001 passed by the Assistant Collector First class.? The appellate court has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 14.09.2001 rejecting the restoration application as also it has set aside the exparte decree dated 28.03.2000 and remanded back the matter by framing specific issue in paragraph 6 of the judgment and directed that? the court below should take evidence of the parties and decide the matter on merits. Under such circumstances, it appears that the decree dated 23.08.2000 was an exparte decree against the respondents and the case of the respondents has not been considered? at all, therefore, when the appellate court has allowed the respondents to contest the suit on merits, no error can be found in the same.? There is no merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.