Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1901 (ALL)

Khem Karan v. Additional District Magistrate

2018-08-31

RAJIV JOSHI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Joshi, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.4.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in restoration application No. R/02 filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 5.12.1973, whereby the revision filed by the father of the petitioner was dismissed on merits. The record reflects that revision No. 18 of 1970-71 was filed by the father of the petitioner. During the pendency of the said revision, fattier of the petitioner had died. An application for substitution was filed by the mother of the petitioner, Smt. Mangiya, which was allowed and the mother of the petitioner as well as petitioner was substituted. Subsequently, the mother of the petitioner has died on 15.5.1973 and the petitioner, who was minor, was substituted and no guardian has been appointed. Ultimately, the revision was dismissed vide order dated 5.12.1973 on merits. 2. The order dated 5.12.1973 was challenged by the petitioner by means of Writ-B No. 23282 of 2013, which was subsequently, dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.9.2016 on the application filed by the petitioner. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner also filed restoration/recall application on 18.7.2016 along with an application for condonation of delay on the ground that revision was dismissed without hearing the petitioner and the order dated 5.12.1973 was ex parte. The said restoration application filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 6.4.2018 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation with the finding that no sufficient explanation has been given for condoning the delay of 43 years. The said order dated 6.4.2018 is impugned in the writ petition. 3. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that revision No. 18 of 1970-71 was dismissed vide order dated 5.12.1973 without any notice to the petitioner. The father of the petitioner filed revision, who died during the pendency of the revision and later his mother also died on 15.5.1973 and at that time, the petitioner was minor and no guardian was appointed. 4. I have considered the argument of the petitioner and perused the record. 5. The father of the petitioner filed revision, who died during the pendency of the revision and later his mother also died on 15.5.1973 and at that time, the petitioner was minor and no guardian was appointed. 4. I have considered the argument of the petitioner and perused the record. 5. The order cannot be said to be an ex parte order and after the death of father of the petitioner, substitution was filed by the mother, whereby petitioner as well as his mother were substituted as legal heirs of his father. Ultimately, the revision was dismissed after hearing the parties concerned. The said order was challenged in the year 2013 before this Court. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.9.2016 and thus the order dated 5.12.1973 has merged in the order passed by this Court dated 6.9.2016 and this Court has not granted any liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order by means of recall application. 6. A finding has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the delay of 43 years has not properly been explained. Even otherwise, when the order dated 5.12.1973 was challenged before this Court, the petitioner cannot file the restoration application during the pendency of the writ petition. No illegality or infirmity has been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order, rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner. Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.