RAMA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shamim Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sheetla Sahai Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 4- Gaon Sabha and Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding under Sec. 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") was initiated by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, which was registered as Case No. 366/584, under Sec. 12 of U.P.C.H. Act before Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Fatehpur. The aforementioned proceeding was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28/6/2017. Against the order dtd. 28/6/2017, an application for recall/restoration application along with the prayer for delay condonation has been filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on 8/3/2018. The aforementioned restoration application dtd. 8/3/2018 was dismissed on the ground of limitation by Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 2/12/2022. Against the order dtd. 2/12/2022, revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed before Deputy Director of Consolidation by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The aforementioned revision was heard and decided vide order dtd. 31/1/2024 setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dtd. 2/12/2022 and remanded the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the restoration application dtd. 8/3/2018 taking liberal view on the delay condonation matter, hence this writ petition challenging the order dtd. 31/1/2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) / Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has filed the application under Sec. 12 of U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed in her favour on 18/8/2006. He further submitted that the application under Sec. 12 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 2017. He next submitted that the sale deed dtd. 18/8/2006 has been challenged by the petitioner in the civil Court and civil suit is pending. He also submitted that the aforementioned proceeding under Sec. 12 of U.P.C.H. Act was dismissed for non-prosecution and the time barred restoration application filed by respondent No. 5 has been rightly rejected on the ground of limitation but revisional Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by Consolidation Officer rejecting the restoration application on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have transferred the property in dispute in favour of respondent No. 7, as such, respondent No. 5 cannot be permitted to pursue the proceeding. He next submitted that the impugned revisional order is liable to be set aside.