Jaqirunnisha and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 48 of 2023 Petitioner :- Jaqirunnisha And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishesh Rajvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Lallan Verma,Prakash Chandra Yadav,Sunil Kumar Singh,Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Lallan Verma on behalf of contesting respondents and Sri A.C.Nishad, learned Standing Counsel.

¶2I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for petitioners that the appeal filed by respondents were heard and allowed even without condoning delay at first instance which was in teeth of a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Ram Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and Others, 2022 (2) AWC 1345 (LB) and he referred paragraph 22 of it.

¶3Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that specific ground was raised in regard to erroneous approach in the memo of revision petition and he referred paras 9 and 10 of the same which is reproduced hereinafter: "9. यह ककि अपपीलपीय न्ययाययालय नने सरसरपी ततौर पर 19 सयाल व 22 सयाल किक दनेरपी किने ललए कियारण किको सन्तकोषजनकि मयानतने हहए कमययाद कियाननून किक धयारया-5 किया लयाभ कदयया हहै। जको सरयासर गलत हहै। इसललए ्ቚश्नगत आदनेश मया्ቔ इसपी आधयार कनरस्त हकोनने यकोग्य हहै।

¶10यह ककि अपपीलयारቕኍ किने शपर प्ቔ किने कवरकोध मम उ्ቈरवयादपी किने तरफ सने ्ቚकत शपर-प्ቔ दयालखिल ककियया गयया रया, इसललए अदयालत किको कमययाद किने कबिन्दद पर गहन कवचयार किरनया चयाकहए रया 19 सयाल 22 सयाल किने दनेरपी किको ्ቌमया किरकिने कमययाद किया लयाभ कदयने जयानने किया किकोई औकचत्य नहीሻ रया तरया अपपील किको कमययाद कबिन्दद पर हपी खियाररज किर कदयया जयानया चयाकहए रया। ऐसया न किरकिने अपपीलपीय न्ययाययालय नने भनूल ककियया हहै।"

¶4Learned counsel for respondents has submitted that respondents have a very good case on merit and both the authorities have decided case on merit.

¶5I find merit in the submission of counsel for petitioners that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has committed a procedural error which goes to the root of case and the Revisional Authority has also erred in not considering specific averment made in the revision petition.

¶6Accordingly the impugned orders dated 20.12.2022 and

4.3.2020 are set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the appeal in terms of Ram Prakash (supra) expeditiously.

¶7With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶8It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 SB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad