VINAY TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sharad Sharma, holding brief of Sri Ram Mani Upadhyaya for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 19.1.2013, by which the application moved by Bhagauti Prasad (respondent -5) under Rule 109A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, has been allowed.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of CO dated 12.10.1992, the petitioner has filed a revision before the Revisional Court, on which 12.7.2012 was the date fixed. However, the revision was taken up on 2.7.2012 and was dismissed in default. When the petitioner attended the case on 12.7.2012, then he came to know about the order of dismissal of the revision and filed a recall application on 14.7.2012. However, taking advantage of the order dated 12.10.2012, the application of respondent -5 has been allowed by CO by order dated 19.1.2013. When the matter was brought to the notice of CO, he by order dated 1.6.2013, stayed the operation of the order dated 19.1.2013. However, subsequently, by the order dated 7.8.2013, the order dated 1.6.2013 has been vacated. He submits that the respondents are avoiding hearing of the recall application before the DDC. He further submits that so long as the revision is pending, the order of CO cannot be treated as a final order and proceeding under Rule 109A was not liable to be initiated and no order could have been passed on it.