USHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in the consolidation proceeding, an order passed on 29/4/2011 by which Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh allowed the revision filed by predecessor of respondent setting aside the orders dtd. 23/3/1985, 26/8/1985 as well as 22/2/2010 and matter was remitted back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding afresh. Under the legal advice, petitioner has filed a restoration application dtd. 25/11/2022 along with the prayer for condonation of delay against the order dtd. 29/4/2011, which was remained pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The consolidation authorities proceeded in pursuance of the order dtd. 29/4/2011 and passed the order accordingly on 22/8/2012 at present appeal under Sec. 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") filed by private respondent No. 4/ Sri Ram and others has been dismissed in default on 2/8/2023. Respondent No. 4 filed a restoration application against the order dtd. 2/8/2023, which is still pending for consideration before respondent No. 3/ Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh vide order dtd. 13/1/2025 rejected the petitioner's time barred restoration application dtd. 25/11/2022 and maintained the order dtd. 29/4/2011, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the order dtd. 29/4/2011, Consolidation Officer has proceeded with the matter and passed another order dtd. 22/8/2012, as such, the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation affirming the order dtd. 29/4/2011 is wholly illegal. He further submitted that at present the restoration application filed by private respondent against the order dismissing the appeal under Sec. 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act is pending, as such, there was no occasion to maintain the order dtd. 29/4/2011 while passing the impugned order dtd. 13/1/2025. He further submitted that the impugned order should be set aside and respondent No. 3 be directed to decide the pending restoration application dtd. 21/8/2023 filed by respondent No. 4/ Sri Ram against the order dtd. 2/8/2023, under Sec. 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act.