R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.6.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the review/recall application filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) The Brief and relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition as unfolded from the material on the record are that the dispute relates to plot No. 1040 (measuring 0.390 acres) situated in village Raunapar, pargana and Tehsil Sagri, district Azamgarh for short 'the land in dispute'. On enforcement of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', in the village where the land in dipute is situated, on partal being made by the authorities, the land in dispute was reported to be the banjar land. It was so recorded and was ultimately reserved for plantation of trees. Petitioners filed an objection claiming that the land in dispute was owned by them but the Consolidation Officer dismissed the said objection by judgment and order dated 20.7.1989 (Annexure C.A. 1). The order passed by the Consolidation Officer became final inasmuch as the petitioners thereafter did not file any appeal or revision against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The village in dispute is alleged to have been de-notified under section 52 of the Act. It is Stated that thereafter the land in dispute was allotted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by the Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 26.3.1990 in exercise of power under section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as they were found to be in possession of the said land. Long thereafter, an application is stated to have been filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under section 48(3) of the Act claiming that the land in dispute was valuable land, the same was wrongly reserved for plantation and it should be given to them in their chak No. 397. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on the said application asked the reports of the authorities below. Two reports dated 16.3.1990 are stated to have been filed, one by the Consolidator and the other by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. They have reported that the land in dispute was already reserved for plantation of trees and after the conclusion of the consolidation operation, the papers were submitted in the Tehsil. Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted the report supporting the claim of the petitioners. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, thereafter, vide order dated 27.9.1990, asked for another report of the Consolidator, which was submitted on 6.10.1990 partly supporting the claim of the petitioners. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, treating the said report as a reference under sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Act, accepted the claim of the petitioners by his sketchy order dated 24.1.1991 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. When the respondents No. 2 and 3 came to know about the order dated 24.1.1991, they filed an application for recalling the said order and restoration of the case. A copy of the said application has been filed alongwith supplementary affidavit as S.A.1. In the said application, it was prayed as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) The aforesaid application was filed mainly on the ground that the claim of the petitioners was already rejected by the Consolidation Officer. The order of the Consolidation Officer dated 20.7.1989 became final, therefore, they had no right to make any application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The land in dispute was allotted to them and that the impugned order was passed without affording the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 an opportunity of being heard, which was necessary under section 48 of the Act. The impugned order was, therefore, liable to be recalled. The Deputy Director of Consolidation thereafter sent for the report of the Kanoongo, which was submitted on 22.6.1992. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, instead of recalling the order dated 24.1.1991, set aside the said order holding that the entire proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction by order dated 22.6.1992. Hence the present petition.;