Dismissed¶10

Saraswati Devi and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Consolidation law – Recall of ex-parte order

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2024/130/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:28967; WRIT - B No. 130 of 2024; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.; order date 09.04.2024. Keywords: U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; Section 12 objection; ex-parte order dated 11.09.1987; recall application 21.02.2019; delay of 32 years; Section 48 revision; remand on delay/limitation; Order 9 Rule 13 recall; cancellation of will deed suit; writ petition dismissed as not pressed with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner to contest the matter before the Consolidation Officer after the remand ordered by the revisional court. ¶10

Saraswati Devi and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28967

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 130 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Saraswati Devi And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present writ petition has been preferred for setting aside the revisional order dated 27.07.2023 passed by respondent no. 1, Deputy Director Consolidation, in Case No. 0509 of 2023. Computerized Case No. 202320235404680000059 filed under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed an objection under Section 12 before the Consolidation OfÏcer in the year 1986, in which objections were filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Uncle and his nephew and respondent no. 4 is the real brother of petitioner no. 2. The objections of the petitioner under Section 12 was rejected by an ex-parte order/judgment dated 11.09.1987 in favour of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and petitioner no. 2, on the basis of succession.

¶8

It is further submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the ex-parte order dated 11.09.1987 and she had come to know about the same in the year 2019 and thereafter she immediately moved an application for recall on 21.02.2019, which was allowed by order dated 09.05.2022 after hearing all the parties concerned.

¶9

It is further submitted that against the order dated 09.05.2022, a revision under Section 48 has been preferred by respondent nos. 3 and 4 which was allowed by impugned order dated 27.07.2003, setting aside the order dated 09.05.2022 by which the recall application of the petitioner was allowed and remanded the matter to the Consolidation OfÏcer to decide the recall application first on the issue of delay/limitation and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 has submitted that in the recall application, the petitioner had stated that she had come to know about the ex-parte order dated 11.09.1987 in the year 2019 which in itself is an incorrect averment and the same was objected before the Consolidation OfÏcer by filing objection against the recall application, which was not considered.

¶11

In the objection against the recall application the date of knowledge to the petitioner has also been mentioned that the petitioner is aware about the order dated 11.09.1987 in the suit pending before the Civil Court, filed by the respondents for cancellation of the will deed on which the petitioner is relying for her claim on the property. The said suit was allowed on 26.08.1987, against which the petitioner had preferred a recall application under Order 9 Rule 13 on 07.09.2007 which was rejected on 17.04.2013 against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal, which was allowed on 22.01.2019, against which the respondents have preferred a writ petition No. 13660 (MS) of 2019 in which an interim order dated 14.05.2019 has been granted and the writ petition is still pending.

¶12

It is further submitted that the petitioner, who herself had filed the objection under Section 12 in the year 1986 and it cannot be believed by any prudent person that she had no knowledge about the case and the passing of the order dated 11.09.1987 and moving an application with delay of 32 years.

¶13

It is further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 27.07.2023 passed in the revision whereby the matter has been remanded with an opportunity to the parties to contest their case.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition as dismissed as not pressed with liberty to contest the matter before the Consolidation OfÏcer after the remand by the revisional court by impugned order dated 27.07.2023.

¶15

As prayed, the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid liberty.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.4.2024 DiVYa

¶17

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Revisional order dated 27.07.2023 passed by respondent no. 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, in Case No. 0509 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. 202320235404680000059) under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, allowing the revision by respondent nos. 3 and 4, setting aside the order dated 09.05.2022 by which the petitioner's recall application was allowed, and remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the recall application first on the issue of delay/limitation.¶1
Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 1) · 27.07.2023
Prior proceeding
Objection under Section 12 filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer in 1986; rejected by ex-parte order/judgment dated 11.09.1987 in favour of respondent nos. 3 and 4 and petitioner no. 2, on the basis of succession.¶2
Prior proceeding
Petitioner claimed she learnt of the ex-parte order dated 11.09.1987 only in 2019 and moved a recall application on 21.02.2019, which was allowed by order dated 09.05.2022 after hearing all parties concerned.¶3
Prior proceeding
Revision under Section 48 preferred by respondent nos. 3 and 4 against the order dated 09.05.2022; allowed by the impugned order dated 27.07.2023 (printed as 27.07.2003 in para 4), setting aside the recall-allowance order and remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the recall application first on delay/limitation.¶4
Prior proceeding
Civil suit pending before the Civil Court, filed by the respondents for cancellation of the will deed on which the petitioner relies for her claim, was allowed on 26.08.1987.¶6
Prior proceeding
Against the suit decree the petitioner filed a recall application under Order 9 Rule 13 on 07.09.2007, which was rejected on 17.04.2013, against which she preferred an appeal.¶6
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's appeal was allowed on 22.01.2019; the respondents have preferred Writ Petition No. 13660 (MS) of 2019 against it, in which an interim order dated 14.05.2019 was granted and which is still pending.¶6

Saraswati Devi and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswati Devi and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raghunath Vs D.D.C. Gonda

Kashi Prasad Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil- Alapur Distt- Ambedkarnagar and 11 Others

Ballopur Bada Navik Evem Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Barabanki Thru. Secy. Vinay Pratap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Shamin Anderson vs Harshal Kenneth Bux

Shakeela Bano vs Tehsildar Tehsil Rudauli Distt. Ayodhya and Another

Dheeraj Singh and 2 Others Vs Ahibaran Singh and 3 Others