PHULJHARIYA Vs. JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Chaudhary Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Handiya District Allahabad in case no. 15/76 (Phuljhariya Vs. State) as well as order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short, 'the DDC') in revision no. 1730/12 (Smt. Phuljhariya Vs. Jagannath and Others). Vide order dated 7.9.2012, the Consolidation Officer has allowed the restoration application of respondent nos. 1 to 3 by recalling the orders dated 3.7.2003 and 30.1.2008, whereas by the subsequent order dated 21.11.2012, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the DDC, holding it as not maintainable.

(3.) It appears, in a proceeding under Rule 109 A (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short, 'the Rules'), which was registered as case no. 15/76, the petitioner's name was ordered to be recorded by the orders dated 3.7.2003 and 30.1.2008. For recall of the aforesaid orders, an application was filed by the respondents on the ground that on the land in dispute, a lease was granted in their favour and by virtue of section 131 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short, 'the Act of 1950') they became Bhumidhars of the land and were necessary parties to the proceedings, but the petitioner, without getting them impleaded, has got exparte orders dated 3.7.2003 and 30.1.2008. The Consolidation Officer found that the respondents were necessary party to the proceedings and they were required to be heard as a valuable right had accrued in their favour by grant of lease and their name was also recorded. Taking note of that, he has recalled the orders dated 3.7.2003 and 30.1.2008 vide impugned order dated 7.9.2012. The petitioner's revision has been dismissed by the DDC, holding it as not maintainable.