- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri Vijai Kumar Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to dispute are as under : In the basic year Avadhu, Parasuram, Panchu sons of Vindeshwari and Kalpa widow of Vindeshwari were recorded as 'bhumidhar'. After death of Kalpa, an objection was filed by Panchu, Parasuram and Avadhu claiming partition of the land in dispute. Another objection was filed by contesting respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and one Ram Bhajan claiming rights on the basis of adverse possession over the land in dispute. Consolidation Officer consolidated both the objection and vide order dated 28-11-1990 allowed the objection filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and Ram Bhajan and directed their names to be recorded over the land in dispute. The order was challenged in appeal. Vide order dated 28-12-2001 Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 28- 11-1990 and maintained the entry of name of Panchu Parasuram and Avadhu over the land in dispute. Appellate order was challenged by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as well as Ram Bhajan by filing a revision. During the pendency of the revision, Ram Bhajan died issueless. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 19-12-2005 dismissed the revision. The revisional order was challenged by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 13709 of 2006 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 9-3-2006. Thus, the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissing the claim of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 based on adverse possession stood confirmed by this Court. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, respondent No. 7 Ram Lagan executed a registered sale-deed with respect to his share in the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner. After the writ petition was dismissed by this Court, the petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to recall the order dated 19-12-2005 on the ground that it was ex-parte passed behind his back without any notice or opportunity of hearing though he was an interested and necessary party in the proceedings. It was also pleaded in the said application that she was the bona fide purchaser for value without any notice or knowledge about the pendency of the litigation. Another recall application was filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on the ground that on account of illness they could not appear before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and also could not inform their Counsel as such the revision was decided without hearing them. It was also pleaded that on account of financial difficulty the recall application could not be filed within time.
(3.) IN so far as the recall application filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is concerned, the same was dismissed rightly by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that they had full knowledge of the proceedings and had also filed writ petition before this Court and the same is not in issue before this Court in the present writ petition. In so far as the recall application filed by the petitioner is concerned, the same was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the land was purchased by her during the pendency of the litigation as such her right should be governed by the principle of lis pendens and since her vendor has lost the proceedings up to the High Court it is not open to her to file any recall application and the proceedings which have become final against her vendor cannot be reopened at her behest. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.;