VIDYAWATI Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-452
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 13,2015

VIDYAWATI Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ran Vijai Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri T.S. Mani Tripathi, holding brief of Sri S.K.S. Baghel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State -respondents and Sri R.P. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the Collector, Aligarh in Revision No. 16 (Smt. Vidya Devi v. Mewa Ram) and order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Koal, Aligarh in case No. 409 of 2009 (Mewa Ram v. Charan Singh).
(2.) VIDE order dated 20.9.2010, the petitioner's restoration application, seeking recall of the order dated 17.5.2010 passed on restoration application filed by the petitioner, has been rejected, whereas by the subsequent order dated 8.12.2011, the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.9.2010 has been dismissed. The facts giving rise to this case are that over the land in dispute, belonging to one late Charan Singh, the name of the petitioner was recorded in PA -11 vide order dated 6.2.2009. The respondent No. 4 (Mewa Ram), thereafter, filed an application under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, which was numbered as case No. 409 of 2009. The Naib Tehsildar, vide order dated 17.5.2010, set aside the order dated 6.2.2009 passed in PA 11 and allowed the mutation application by recording the name of the other side over the land in dispute. When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid order, he filed a restoration application seeking recall of the order dated 17.5.2010, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.9.2010 by the Tehsildar. The petitioner filed revision, but that too has been dismissed.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 17.5.2010 was passed ex parte as against the petitioner. The petitioner's restoration application was dismissed altogether on a different ground. This aspect of the matter had also not been examined by the Collector while deciding the revision.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.