GHANSHYAM JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Tariq Maqbool Khan, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.1.2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Gorakhpur in case No. 46/Ka (Ghanshyam v. Land Management Committee and others) and order dated 22.1.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur in revision No. 99/192/G-2013 (Ghanshyam v. Jawahir).

(2.) While assailing the impugned orders, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 18.9.2007 was passed after due notice to the other side and in spite of the notice, they did not appear, therefore, on their instance, the order dated 18.9.2007 could not be set aside. In his further submission, the application seeking recall of the order dated 18.9.2007 was time-barred and there was no explanation to condone the delay, even then, delay has been condoned. It is further submitted that the revisional Court too has not gone into this aspect of the matter and dismissed the revision on the ground that it is against an interlocutory order.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears, on the land in dispute, a lease was granted for housing site in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by order dated 1.10.1986. The petitioner herein has filed an application under Rule 115-P of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 seeking cancellation of the aforesaid lease, which was numbered as case No. 46/Ka (Ghanshyam v. Land Management Committee and others). The aforesaid application was allowed ex parte by the judgment and order dated 18.9.2007. The other side has filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 18.9.2007 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City) (in short 'A.D.M. City'). The application was barred by time, therefore, an application was also filed for condonation of delay. The A.D.M. City, vide order dated 31.1.2013, has condoned the delay and set aside the order dated 18.9.2007 with the direction to hear the matter again afresh.