Hon'ble A.P.Sahi - (1.) HEARD Sri S.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.N. Singh, Advocate, who has filed an impleadment application on behalf of Arshad and others and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THIS writ petition was entertained on 2.11.2006 and the following interim order was passed: "Connect with writ petition No. 52795 of 2006. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7, who prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner shall have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder-affidavit. List for admission after expiry of the aforesaid period. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that proceedings for expunging his name from the revenue record is being undertaken by the authorities without permitting him to participate in the same, even though his rights over the property in dispute were recognized by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 9.9.1996 in proceedings under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which has become final. It is further contended that inspite of their being adjudication of title in his favour, respondent-authorities are misinterpreting the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tewari v. Kamla Devi and others, 2001 RD 689, as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Iqbal Ahmad and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and others, 2005(98) RD 580 and they are adamant to expunge the name of the petitioner without permitting him to participate in the proceedings. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to an interim order. Until further orders of this Court, the parties to the writ petition are directed to maintain status quo with regard to nature, possession and entries in the revenue record pertaining to the land in dispute. The respondents are further restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours." THIS writ petition having been filed in the year 2006 contains the following two prayers. "I. Issue a writ of mandamus order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to disturb the right, title and possession of the petitioner over the plots in dispute well described in the writ petition except following the due required procedure in accordance with law. II. Issue a writ of mandamus order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondent authorities commanding them to keep in fact the entries in the relevant statutory records as it is today up to the time until and unless the same are not ordered to be modified, varied or expunged by any competent judicial forum." It was further prayed that the Executive Authorities may not dispossess the petitioner by any administrative fiat except otherwise than in accordance with law. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the submissions, Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the proposed respondents submits that the writ petition be disposed of finally enabling the authority to take recourse to law.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid submission, it is evident that the authorities were proceeding to expunge the entries without having taken notice of and putting the petitioner to notice in relation to the orders which are being relied upon. Suffice it to say, if the orders have been passed by the Consolidation Authorities, as noted above, then the respondent administration has to move an application for recall or for setting aside such orders, inasmuch as, it is well settled that even an order criticised as being void requires setting aside. Reference be had to the observations of the Apex Court in the Constitution Bench decision of Janardhan Reddyv. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1951 SC 217 (Paragraphs 25 and 26) extracted hereinunder: "Evidently, the appellate Court in a case which properly comes before it on appeal, is fully competent to decide whether the trial was with or without jurisdiction, and it has jurisdiction to decide the matter rightly as well as wrongly. If it affirms the conviction and thereby decides wrongly that the trial Court had the jurisdiction to try and convict it cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction and its order cannot be treated as a nullity. It is well settled that if a Court Acts without jurisdiction, its decision can be challenged in the same way as it would have been challenged if it had acted with jurisdiction, i.e., an appeal would lie to the Court to which it would lie if its order was with jurisdiction." ;