- (1.) Heard Sri Pradeep Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition, the validity of the order dated 16.8.2012 passed in Revision No. 97 (Lalanjoo v. D.D.C. and others) has been challenged. While assailing this order, Sri Pradeep Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the order dated 13.1.2009 was passed after due notice to the otherside. In his submissions, a notice was pasted, therefore it was sufficient service on the respondents. He has further contended that highly belated application for recall of the order dated 13.1.2009 was filed which was accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and there was no explanation for condoning the delay but the Consolidation Officer has not only condoned the delay but also recalled the order dated 13.1.2009. The petitioner filed revision that too has been dismissed without addressing on the question of service as well as limitation. In his submissions, the orders impugned are perfectly illegal and deserves to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of writ petition. The facts giving rise to the case are that it appears an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 13.1.2009 in Case No. 935/2008-09 under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in between Lalanjoo (the petitioner) and State by which the objection of the petitioner was allowed and the existing boring over Plot No. 1091/1, was directed to be recorded in the name of the petitioner by fixing its valuation Rs. 15,000/-. For recall of the aforesaid order, an application was filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay by the respondents on the ground that they are the co-owner of the bore and without there being any notice to them, the order dated 13.1.2009 was passed. The Consolidation Officer has condoned the delay and recalled the order dated 13.1.2009. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed revision that has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order.
(2.) Sri Chandra has contended that the notice was pasted therefore it was sufficient service on the respondents and it was not open to the Consolidation Officer to recall this order by treating it ex parte. In his submissions, the order passed by C.O. is without jurisdiction as consolidation authorities/Courts have no power to review its own order.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the order passed by the C.O. and the exact words used for pasting the notice on which Sri Chandra has contended that the otherside was dully noticed. For appreciation, aforesaid line noticed by the C.O. is reproduced hereinunder: From the perusal of the aforesaid line, the place of pasting of notice is not clear. However, it appears that the notice was pasted on some register maintained by the Court's office for purposes of records of sending notice and it has no relevance with the pasting of the notice on the house of respondents. Therefore, it cannot be said to be sufficient service on the respondents and even if it is assumed that the notice pasted was on the door of the respondents, it will not be treated to be sufficient service unless the satisfaction is recorded by the Court/authority concerned that the service is sufficient, therefore the submission of Sri Chandra in this regard appears to be misconceived. Otherwise also the service of the notice on the respondents is a question of fact and once the C.O. has recorded a finding that there was no service on the respondents, it cannot be interfered with under article 226 of the Constitution unless the finding is perverse, which in my considered opinion is not.;