Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 115 (ALL)

Ram Surat v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

1984-01-31

K.P.SINGH

body1984
JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this application the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 have prayed for recalling the order dated 29. 7. 1982 on the ground that the counsel was not heard when the Writ Petition was allowed on 29.7.1982. When the application came up for hearing I indicated to the counsel that if he could satisfy me on merits, the application will be allowed and the case will be listed for re-hearing. 2. Today the learned counsel for the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 Sri R. K. Malviya has contended that the opposite parties were in possession over the disputed land since long, hence their claim should be decided by the consolidation authorities on merits. The impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 29.6.1973 was against the petitioners in the Writ petition and in favour of the contesting opposite party Gaon Sabha. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the opposite parties I allowed the Writ petition through my order dated 29.7.1982. 3. It is note-worthy that the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 had not come against the order of the revisional Authority in writ jurisdiction. They were only opposite parties in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. It has been suggested by the learned counsel for the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 that as the lease in favour of the petitioners was cancelled the opposite parties did not think proper to challenge the judgment of the revisional authority in Writ jurisdiction hence they did not approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. After hearing counsel for the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 I am of the opinion that the aforesaid opposite parties were not necessary parties in the writ petition. They were only formal parties. The judgment of the revisional authority was really in favour of the gaon sabha and against the petitioners, hence the impugned order in the writ application even if quashed without hearing the counsel for the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 it would not work any hardship upon them in the circumstances mentioned above. 5. When the impugned order of the revisional authority has been quashed by this Court the dispute shall be dealt with by the revisional authority hereafter and if the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 it would not work any hardship upon them in the circumstances mentioned above. 5. When the impugned order of the revisional authority has been quashed by this Court the dispute shall be dealt with by the revisional authority hereafter and if the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 have any claim in the disputed land it would be open to them to canvass their claim before the revisional authority. 6. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioners has stressed that when the order of the revisional authority was quashed the automatic result would be that the order of the appellate authority would become operative and nothing is pending before the revisional authority. In the circumstances it is necessary to permit, the opposite parties-applicant in this application to canvass their standpoint before the revisional authority. I am afraid that this contention cannot be accepted in to. If the order of the highest authority is quashed and no final order is passed by this court the matter becomes pending before the highest authority and it is the highest subordinate authority to pass final order with a view to terminate the proceedings before it. In that view of the matter I think that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has become operative and nothing can be done by the Revisional Authority, is not a Correct contention. However, after the order passed by me in this Writ petition of the revisional authority has passed the final order in the revision petition. Nothing can be done by the opposite parties any more and the order passed by the revisional authority if not challenged by the aggrieved party further it would become final between them, but if the revisional authority has not passed any final order with a view to terminate the proceedings after its order having been quashed by this court it would be open to the contesting opposite parties to convass their stand before the revisional Authority. 7. In the circumstances of this case I see no good ground to recall my order dated 29. 7.1982 whereby the Writ petition has been allowed. 7. In the circumstances of this case I see no good ground to recall my order dated 29. 7.1982 whereby the Writ petition has been allowed. The technical ground raised on behalf of the opposite parties that their counsel was not heard when the order dated 29.7.1982 was passed, even if accepted as correct for recalling that order, the learned counsel has failed to satisfy me that the order dated 29.7.1982 suffered from any patent mistake hence I am inclined to recall that order on a technical ground. Because after hearing the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties. Nos. 2 to 4 no useful purpose will be served by recalling the order dated 29.7.1982 and passing same order again. In this view of the matter the review application moved on 17.8.82 deserves to be rejected. 8. In the result the review application is rejected. Costs on parties.