Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 315 (ALL)

Kiran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2020-01-28

PRAKASH PADIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Prakash Padia, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the orders dated 22.5.2012 and 18.7.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr, copies of which are appended as Annexure-2 & 5 to the writ petition. 4. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that one Sri Chandu, father-in-law of the petitioner had chak No. 1178, and had original plot Nos. 505/1, 505/2, 485, 511, 512, 515/1, 515/2 and 515/3. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that an ex-parte proceedings were initiated as provided under section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. It is further stated that when the petitioner came to know regarding the order passed in the aforesaid proceedings on 22.5.2012, the recall application was filed by her before respondent No. 1. The said recall application was rejected by the respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 18.7.2018, copy of which is appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is further argued that various grounds were taken in the recall application filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 but none of them was taken into consideration by him while rejecting the same. Challenging the aforesaid orders namely order dated 22.5.2012 as well as order dated 18.7.2018/the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. An interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner by this Court on 4.9.2018. Affidavits have already been exchanged between the contesting parties. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Ekansh Varma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 6. It appears from perusal of the record that an order dated 22.5.2012 was passed by the respondent No. 1, in the proceedings initiated under section 48(3) of the Act of 1953. When the petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid order, restoration application was filed by her and the same was rejected by respondent No. 1 without giving any cogent reasons. When the petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid order, restoration application was filed by her and the same was rejected by respondent No. 1 without giving any cogent reasons. The only reason given while rejecting the recall application is that notices were sent to the petitioner which is available on record but no further findings were recorded that whether the aforesaid notice was ever received by the petitioner or not. It is further clear from perusal of the order dated 18.7.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1 that the aforesaid order is absolutely non speaking order, the same was passed by him without application of mind. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 18.7.2018 passed by respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr, copy of which is appended as Annex-ure-5 to the writ petition is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. 9. Respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr is directed to pass appropriate order on the recall application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10. Till the time final decision is taken by the respondent No. 1 on the recall application of the petitioner status quo between the parties shall be maintained.