Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2105/2025 on 8 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:7013
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS/2105/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Mukesh Kaparuwan, Advocate holding brief
of Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, Standing Counsel for
the State.
Mr. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, Senior Advocate
assisted by Dr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate for the
respondents.
2. Petitioner has challenged order dated 19.05.2025
passed by Deputy Director Consolidation, Udham Singh
Nagar in Revision No. 05 of 2024-25. By the said order,
Revision filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as not
maintainable.
3. It transpires that petitioner had filed an application
seeking recall of an ex parte order dated 28.07.1992
passed by Consolidation Officer, Kichha, District
Udham Singh Nagar in proceedings under Section 9A of
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The said
application was allowed by Consolidation Officer vide
order dated 08.02.2022. Thereafter, respondents moved
an application before the Consolidation Officer for
seeking recall of order dated 08.02.2022, which was also
allowed vide order dated 28.06.2023. Petitioner
thereafter preferred a revision under Section 48 of the
aforesaid Act, which was dismissed as not maintainable
on the ground that after issuance of notification under
Section 52 of the Act, an application seeking recall of an
order passed in consolidation proceedings is not
maintainable. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has
2025:UHC:7013
approached this Court challenging the order passed by
Revisional Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Hon’ble
Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Bahadur Vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported
in (1972) 12 AHC CK 0009. Paras 2 & 3 of the said
judgment are extracted below:
“2. The issuance of the Notification does not, however affect
the orders passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court under the
provisions of the Constitution of India or in cases or proceedings
pending under this Act ort the date of issue of notification under
Sub-section (1) and orders passed will have to be given effect to
notwithstanding anything contained in the Notification. In Dilawar
Singh Vs. The Gram Samaj and Others, the Division Bench observed
that the term “proceedings” in Section 52 (2) has been used in the
comprehensive sense of proceedings commencing from the one
which is initiated before the Consolidation Officer and including that
taken in the appeal Court It was held that an appeal does not initiate
a fresh proceeding. On the institution of the appeal the proceedings,
which had become dormant on the decision of the trial Court, revive
and remain pending, the only difference being that they are now
pending in a different Court, namely, the Court of appeal. It was also
held that the notification u/s 52 (1) does not have the effect of
destroying vested rights of the litigants. For instance, if a litigant has
a right of appeal against a particular order he can exercise it
notwithstanding the publication of the notification u/s 52 (1) and the
moment an appeal is filed the effect in law is that the original
proceedings stand revived.
3. In our opinion the principle laid down in this case is
applicable to an application for setting aside an ex parte order.
Section 41 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act makes the
provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U.P. Land Revenue Act
applicable to all proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings
Act. Sections 200 and 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are in
Chapter IX. Section 200 provides that, whenever any party to such
proceeding neglects to attend on the day specified in the summons,
or on any day to which the case may have been postponed, the Court
may dismiss the case for default or may hear and determine it ex
parte. Section 201 says that no appeal shall lie from an order passed
u/s 200 ex parte or by default. That section provides for re-hearing
on proof of good cause for non-appearance. The petitioner had made
an application under this provision for the rehearing of the case on
showing good cause for non-appearance. Actually his case was that
he was all along present but he was informed that the case would be
heard on some other date. The proceedings are thus for the re-
hearing of the matter. The petitioner had a statutory right to make
such an application. This right accrued to him on 23-12-1968 the
2025:UHC:7013
date when the Consolidation Officer disposed of the objection. That
right could not be extinguished by the issuance of the notification u/s
52 (1). The effect of the exercise of that right was to invoke the
revival of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer. In our
opinion, such proceedings are on the same footing as an appeal
because they have the effect of reviving the original proceedings.”
5. Mr. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents submits that application
seeking recall of the order dated 28.07.1992 filed by
petitioner is highly belated and record of the proceedings
was weeded out much prior to filing of the recall
application.
6. He also sought time to file counter affidavit. Since
the issue involved is purely legal and there is no factual
dispute, therefore, filing of counter affidavit would be a
waste of time.
7. Since the issue is covered by Division Bench
judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, where it has
been held that even after issuance of notification under
Section 52 of aforesaid Act, proceedings of an appeal
can continue, likewise a review application and
application seeking review/recall can also be entertained.
8. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated
19.05.2025 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation in
Revision No. 5 of 2024-2025 is set aside. The revision
filed by petitioner shall stand restored to the file of
Deputy Director Consolidation, who shall decide the
same on merit as per law.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
08.08.2025
Mahinder/
Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH
MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923
c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BA
BA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.08.11 18:58:36 +05’30’
2025:UHC:7013