Ram Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl./ Prin. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1026 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ram Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl./ Prin. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Mansoor,Mohammad Danish Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Bhanu Singh,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶1Heard Sri Mohd. Mansoor, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Chandra Bhanu Singh, learned counsel for the caveator as well as Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶2By way of filing the instant petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Raebareli, in connected Revision No.95, under section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

¶3Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated

25.10.2023 is erroneous and perverse which is apparent from the findings recorded by the court. He also added that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶4He added that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer Consolidation is still in existence as the same was not set aside in the order passed by the revisional court and the record of the court of the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as Consolidation Officer was not summoned, while passing the impugned order.

¶5On the other hand, learned State counsel on the basis of instructions submits that due to technical error in the order, the order for setting aside the impugned orders could not be mentioned by the revisional court and thus he has failed to rebut the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶6In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the opposite party no.2, i.e., Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional District Magistrate (F/R) District-Raebareli, in respect of Revision No.95 only, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the revisional court concerned to pass a fresh order, affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within a period of three months from the date of this order, in accordance with law.

¶7With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition is hereby allowed. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 Manoj K. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench