RAJAN ROY,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Contitution of India challenging the order dated 30.04.2014 passed by the Consolidation officer on the application for recall filed by the respondents recalling the orders dated 15.03.1989, 18.03.1989, 28.03.1989 and 29.03.1989. The order of the revisional Court dated 15.02.2017 rejecting the revision of the petitioner against the said orders of the Consolidation officer is also under challenge.
(3.) The contention of Shri Ravi Nath Tilhari, learned counsel for the petitioner herein was that the objection under Section 9- A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 were decided on 29.03.1989 as the respondents herein did not cooperate in the proceedings which were ordered to be held ex parte on 11.01.1988. Their application for recall was also rejected several time. The respondents moved an application for recall of the order dated 29.03.1989 on 04.04.1989 which itself was rejected on 10.07.1990 for want of prosecution. An application for recall of the said order dated 10.07.1990 was filed but without recalling the same the order dated 29.03.1989 was recalled by the Consolidation officer vide its order dated 30.04.2014 after 25 years which was clearly impermissible. In this regard he relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (103) RD 426; Jangi Lal through LRs. and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh Camp at Allahabad and Ors. It was also the contention of Shri Tilhari that the ingredients of Section 201 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 read with Section 41 of the Act, 1953 were not satisfied and there is no recital in the impugned orders that good cause had been shown or there had been failure of justice, therefore, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 1150; Parimal v. Veena, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders impugned could not be sustained and same had been passed mechanically.;