RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.P.S. Chauhan for the petitioner.
(2.) THE Stamp Reporter has reported that the writ petition has been filed with an inordinate delay of 3 years and 376 days. By the impugned order, the revision filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. It is not clear as to which of the revisions has been dismissed. It is stated that the revisions had already been decided on 16.10.1998 on merit after hearing the parties. Thereafter, respondents -2 and 3 filed a restoration application, which was dismissed in default on 13.6.2002. Respondents -2 and 3 filed another restoration application, in which a forged compromise was filed. On the basis of the compromise, the revisions were allowed on 16.8.2002. The petitioner has filed an application for recall of the order, alleging therein that a fraud has been committed on the Court and the recall application of the petitioner was before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, however, without passing any order in respect of the recall application, the revision has been dismissed. The order is thoroughly vague and does not serve any purpose. In respect of the delay, the petitioner has stated that the argument in the recall application has been heard on 28.4.2006, but thereafter, order has not been passed and dates were fixed upto 29.7.2009. However, the impugned order is alleged to have been passed on 20.7.2009, which appears to be an ante -dated order. He submits that the petitioner was not aware of the order and it was only when on the basis of the order dated 20.7.2009, proceeding was taken for disturbing the chak of the petitioner in July, 2013, then an inquiry was made on 8.8.2013 and the petitioner came to know about the order.
(3.) THE petitioner has not taken any clear stand as to whether the order dated 20.7.2009 was passed in their presence or in their default. However, the petitioner has made allegation in the writ petition that arguments were heard by respondent -1 on 28.4.2006 but by the order dated 20.7.2009, revision was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thus it is not clear as to whether restoration application has been dismissed or revision has been dismissed. In these circumstances, it will be appropriate that the petitioner may move an application for recalling the aforesaid order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation giving the entire facts and circumstances in which the order dated 20.7.2009 has been passed. In case any such application is filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today, it shall be decided on merit in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.;