Hon''ble A.P. Sahi, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was aggrieved by an order dated 3.8.2009 said to have been passed in proceedings u/s 12 of The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the strength of an alleged compromise. The said order has been straightway challenged in a revision by the petitioner on the ground that no such order could have been passed on the basis of an alleged compromise and that too even without any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that it was not in compliance with the Rule 25-A of The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954.
3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation entertained the said revision and passed an interim order on 16.8.2011. This appears to have been done in view of the Suo motu powers conferred on the Deputy Director of Consolidation u/s 48 of the Act.
4. Even if Suo motu powers are being exercised, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has to give plausible reasons including considerations of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury for passing of an interim order. The interim order dated 16.8.2011 does not indicate any such ingredients having been discussed for grant of an ex parte order. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
5. It appears that the contesting respondent filed an application that the said stay order was ex parte and the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order setting aside the said order on 15.11.2011.
6. Learned counsel submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had fixed 20.12.2011 in the matter and, as such, there was no occasion to have entertained the application on behalf of the respondents and vacated the interim order.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the records, it is evident that the order dated 16.8.2011 does not contain even prima facie reasons for granting an interim order to protect the interest of the petitioner. More so, such interim orders, where a time barred revision had been filed, could not have been granted without even condoning the delay and putting the opposite party to notice about the same. The procedure, therefore, for grant of an interim order was clearly violated. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, in substance has not committed any error in vacating the stay order even though he has done it without putting the petitioner to notice. This Court will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to restore a wrong order.
8. The Deputy Director of Consolidation if was proceeding to exercise Suo motu powers, then he had to first determine as to whether such ingredients are available or not for exercising such powers as the matter arises out of an alleged compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer.
9. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 15.11.2011. Learned counsel informs the Court that the next date fixed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation is 20.12.2011. It shall be open to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to proceed with the matter only after hearing the counsel for the parties represented before him.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is consigned to records.
