AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 7-Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that two separate revision filed by petitioner as well as one Ram Autar were allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide common order dtd. 12/3/1993. Against the order dtd. 12/3/1993 a restoration application was filed by the petitioner on 23/ 25/4/2005 along with separate application for condonation of delay. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 22/6/2006 granted benefit of Sec. 5 of Limitation Act as well as allowed the restoration application dated 23/ 25/4/2005 filed by petitioner and modified the earlier order dtd. 12/3/1993 to the extent of allotment of plot Nos. 486, 487 and 486 to the petitioner affecting the interest of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and reserved certain area of the aforementioned plot as chak marg. Against the order dtd. 22/6/2006 restoration application dtd. 20/3/2021 has been filed by respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 along with prayer for condonation of delay for recalling the order dtd. 22/6/2006. The aforementioned restoration application has been allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 15/2/2024 after granting benefit of Sec. 5 of Limitation Act setting aside the earlier order dtd. 22/6/2006 and restored restoration application dated 23/ 25/4/2005 filed by the petitioner for fresh decision in accordance with law.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dtd. 22/6/2006 was passed after hearing the parties, as such the restoration application at the instance of the private respondents after delay of about 15 years cannot be entertained. He further submitted that Consolidation Courts have no power to review his judgment passed on merit . He further submitted that delay of 15 years has been condoned in arbitrary manner, as such the impugned order dtd. 15/2/2024 be set aside and earlier order dtd. 22/6/2006 be affirmed. He further submitted that further hearing of restoration application dated 23/25/4/2005 is abuse of process of law.