RAM PATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Present petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 27.11.2003 by which the revision of the petitioners was dismissed.

(2.) THE dispute in the instant petition revolves round plot No. 1628 admeasuring 5 biswa, 19 dhurs situated in village Phulli, post Zamania, Tahsil Zamania, district Ghazipur. It transpires from the record that pursuant to a compromise, the matter culminated in passing order dated 5.12.1975 by which the Consolidation Officer directed to expunge the names of Raj Narain and in his place, to mutate the names of Annpurna Devi, Kamla and Anand Mohan. By means of order dated 28.7.1984, the Deputy Director of Consolidation levied in implementation the aforestated order in exercise of power under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Phoenix like, the matter re-emerged from the ashes in 1997 i.e., after a lapse of 13 years on an application moved by the petitioners thereby seeking setting aside the order dated 28.7.1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Acting on this application, the Settlement Officer Consolidation made an order dated 24.11.1997 purporting to be under Section 11C of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is intimated in the said order itself that tenure holders were not heard. THEn followed the application for recall made on behalf of the recorded tenure holders thereby they sought recall of the ex parte order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and by means of the order dated 2.1.1998, order dated 24.11.1997 was recalled. THE order embodies the observation that in case any one of the parties feels aggrieved by the orders he may avail of the alternative remedy by filing appeal/ revision or restoration application in accordance with law. THE petitioners chose to prefer a revision which culminated in being dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 27.11.2003. It is in the above backdrop that the present petition has been instituted assailing the impugned order.

(3.) THE next limb of the submissions made across the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was fully competent to make order dated 24.11.1997, on petitioner's application in exercise of power under Section 11C of the U.P.C.H. Act and subsequently, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation erred in law in recalling said order which was wrongly countenanced in revision by the Deputy Director Consolidation. In connection with this proposition, I would first scan the provisions of Section 11C for its substantiality in relation to the order dated 24.11.1997 :