JUDGMENT : (Jaspreet Singh, J.) 1. Heard Shri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Krishna Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel, who has accepted notice for the respondents No.4 and 5. 2. In view of the issue involved in the instant petition, learned counsel for the respondents submits that they do not propose to file any counter affidavit and the matter may be decided at the admission stage itself and accordingly with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has proceeded to hear and decide the matter at the admission stage. 3. The petitioner has instituted the instant petition seeking quashing of the order dated 11.08.2022 passed by the respondent No.3, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.1. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had initially instituted a petition under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, "the Code") seeking declaration of right. The said case came to be decided on 08.03.2022. 5. It is further submitted that against the aforesaid order, the respondents No.4 and 5 through their counsel had moved an application before the respondent No.3, however, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the said application came to be allowed and the order dated 08.03.2022 passed in favour of the petitioner was modified by the respondent No.3 by means of the order dated 07.04.2022, as a result, the declaration granted in favour of the petitioner as bhumidhar with transferable rights was modified as bhumidar with non-transferable rights. 6. It is further urged that after the said order dated 07.04.2022 was passed, the State-respondents moved another application on 07.07.2022 seeking recall of the order dated 07.04.2022. A copy of the said application was served on the petitioner and the petitioner filed her objections as well as written submissions. This application moved by the State-respondents dated 07.07.2022 has been allowed by means of the order dated 11.08.2022, as a result, the suit of the petitioner has also been dismissed. 7. A copy of the said application was served on the petitioner and the petitioner filed her objections as well as written submissions. This application moved by the State-respondents dated 07.07.2022 has been allowed by means of the order dated 11.08.2022, as a result, the suit of the petitioner has also been dismissed. 7. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once an application had been moved by the Gaon Sabha wherein the order dated 08.03.2022 was modified by means of the order dated 07.04.2022, it was not open for the State-respondents to have moved a separate application seeking recall of the order dated 07.04.2022. 8. It is also urged that even if at all the said application at the behest of the State-respondents was maintainable even then the scope of enquiry before the respondent No.3 was limited only to the extent of the said application and it was not open for the respondent No.3 to have entered into the merits of the suit and could not have rejected the suit filed by the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, learned standing counsel as well as learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha have submitted that the petitioner had moved an application under Section 144 of the Code with incorrect facts. The case was made on the basis of the adverse possession whereas the land in question was entered as a Gaon Sabha land. 10. It is urged that in respect of the said land, the petitioner could not have been granted any right whatsoever either as a bhumidhar with transferable or non-transferable rights. It is thus, urged that the respondent No.3 looking into the aforesaid facts and circumstances did not commit any error where the petitioner could not have been granted any relief in the first instance. Even if at all, while considering the recall application and simultaneously the respondent No.3 entered into the merits and examined the case has rejected the suit, hence, no prejudice is said to have been caused to the petitioner and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 12. At the outset, it may be stated that the respondent No.3 while passing of the order dated 11.08.2022 has prima-facie exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him in law. 11. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 12. At the outset, it may be stated that the respondent No.3 while passing of the order dated 11.08.2022 has prima-facie exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him in law. The facts insofar as the present case is concerned is not much in dispute. It is not disputed that the petitioner had filed a suit under Section 144 of the Code. Apparently, since, the application under Section 144 of the Code has not been brought on record as such it cannot be ascertained as to who were the parties in the said suit. 13. Suffice it to submit that from the nomenclature of the case which is titled as 'Krishna Devi v. Gram Sabha', at least this much is certain that Gaon Sabha was a party to the proceedings. It cannot be made out nor learned counsel for the petitioner could indicate as to whether the State was a party or not. 14. Be that as it may, the fact remains that after the case under Section 144 of the Code was decided in favour of the petitioner by means of the order dated 08.03.2022 and the petitioner was declared as a bhumidhar with transferable right. This order came to be modified upon an application moved by the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha which was considered and decided on 07.04.2022, as a result, the order dated 08.03.2022 was modified to the extent that the petitioner, who had earlier been declared as a bhumidhar with transferable rights was now declared as a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. 15. It is also not disputed between the parties that the order dated 07.04.2022 was passed ex-parte without issuing any notice to the petitioner, who naturally would have a necessary party. The matter did not rest here as after the order dated 07..04.2022 was passed, thereafter on 07.07.2022 the State moved another application seeking recall of the order dated 07.04.2022. In the said application moved by the State, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.6, it was alleged that the case had been decided ex-parte. Certain legal issues were not even considered. Apart from the fact that without affording an opportunity of hearing nor any evidence was led yet the case was decided on 08.03.2022. 16. Certain legal issues were not even considered. Apart from the fact that without affording an opportunity of hearing nor any evidence was led yet the case was decided on 08.03.2022. 16. Though the said application moved by the State was only against the order dated 07.04.2022, but as the initial order dated 08.03.2022 was modified by means of the order dated 07.04.2022, hence, it was the order dated 07.04.2022 which became binding and subsisting between the parties and for the said reason the State appears to have sought the recall of the said order dated 07.04.2022. 17. It is not disputed that on the application moved by the State dated 07.07.2022, the petitioner was served with the notice in pursuance whereof she had filed her objections as well as written submissions. 18. The primary ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the respondent No.3 was that the application was beyond time. It was also urged that the respondents Gaon Sabha as well as the State are to be represented by one counsel and in the aforesaid circumstances once the application had already moved by the Gaon Sabha, the subsequent application at the behest of the State was not maintainable. 19. It was also urged that by moving the said application, the respondent was seeking a review and the scope of review and recall is quite different and this as part has not been considered and the application of the State was liable to be dismissed. 20. Having noticed the aforesaid, the respondent No.3 by means of the order dated 11.08.2022 allowed the application moved by the State dated 07.07.2022 and finding that the petitioner could not make out a case on merit has set aside the order passed in favour of the petitioner dated 07.04.2022 by entering into the merits of the case and returned a finding thereon. 21. Insofar as the issue as to whether the application for recall was maintainable at the behest of the State is concerned, since, the application under Section 144 of the Code has not been placed on record nor the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a categorical statement that the State was a party and was duly served both with the notice under Section 80 CPC and also in terms of the summons issued by the respondent No.3 when the suit was dealt with. 22. 22. Accordingly, this Court does not enter into that controversy for the reason that the order apparently and admittedly was ex-parte both against the Gaon Sabha as well as the State. The only issue that needs to be considered is that once an application for recall was being considered, the scope of enquiry with the respondent No.3 was only to the extent as to whether a cause for recalling the order dated 07.04.2022 was sufficient or not. The sufficiency of the cause was to be tested and it was not open for the respondent No.3 at this stage to have entered into the merits and have scrutinized the case of the petitioner. This apparently is in excess of jurisdiction with the respondent No.3. 23. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 11.08.2022 to the extent that it enters into the merits and records a finding to set aside the order dated 07.04.2022 and dismisses the case of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. 24. The order dated 11.08.2022 shall be read only to the extent that it allows the recall application moved by the State. Consequently, the suit of the petitioner under Section 144 of the Code shall stands restored to its original number before the respondent No.3. The parties shall appear before the respondent No.3 on 26.09.2022. The respondent No.3 shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties including the Gaon Sabha and the State, who shall be entitled to file their response/objection, within four weeks and the Court concerned, after affording opportunity to parties to lead evidence and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties, shall make an endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously on merits considering the case of the respective parties strictly in accordance with law. 25. Though this Court notices that the proceedings emanated from under Section 144 of the Code and the petitioner has a remedy under the Code, however, without entering into this aspect of the matter and taking a holistic view, this order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances. 26. The writ petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.