- (1.) Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, for the petitioner and Sri Triveni Shanker, for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims title to the plots in dispute in the consolidation proceedings on the basis of a Will executed by Smt. Chandrawas Kunwari - widow of late Sri Deenanath Singh. Smt. Chandrawas Kunwari was the mother of respondent no. 4 and the grandmother of respondent no 3. It appears that in the basic year records, the respondent no. 4 was recorded as the tenure holder of the disputed plots. The petitioner instituted Case No. 289 under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') claiming to be recorded as tenant of the disputed plots on the basis of a Will dated 3.6.2008 allegedly executed by Chandrawas Kunwari in his favour. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 2.5.2016 dismissed Case No. 289. Against the order dated 2.5.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 289, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 189 under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sonbhadra vide his order dated 8.8.2016. Through his aforesaid order, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation directed that the petitioner be recorded as the tenure holder of the disputed plots on the basis of the Will dated 3.6.2008. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed separate recall applications for recall of the order dated 8.8.2016 which were allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sonbhadra vide his order dated 8.7.2019 and the order dated 8.8.2016 was recalled by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The consequential Revision No. 2019531666000016 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sonbhadra vide his order dated 17.10.2019. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 8.7.2019 and 17.10.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respectively.
(3.) It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the recall application filed by respondent no. 3 was not maintainable as respondent no. 3 had no right in the disputed plots and the respondent no. 4 had filed an application for withdrawal of the recall application filed by him. It was argued that while passing the order dated 8.7.2019, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation did not consider the withdrawal application filed by respondent no. 4 and also the fact that the recall application filed by respondent no. 3 was not maintainable. It was argued that no orders had been passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on the withdrawal application filed by respondent no. 4. It was further argued that the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the revisional court but the revisional court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner without considering the aforesaid facts. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the orders dated 8.7.2019 and 17.10.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal and contrary to law and are liable to be set-aside. Rebutting the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the respondents has argued that respondent no. 4 had filed a second withdrawal application praying to withdraw the application filed by him for withdrawing the recall application and, therefore, there is no illegality in the orders dated 8.7.2019 and 17.10.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.;