Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.@mdashHeard Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel as well as Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 26.12.2013 and 9.9.2010 passed by opposite party No. 1 and 2 respectively as contained in Annexures-1 and 2, whereby the opposite party No. 2 had allowed the revision setting aside the impugned order dated 9.8.2005 while abating the revision filed under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The revision preferred against the said order before the Board of Revenue was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not in dispute that the proceedings for consolidation operations were initiated in the concerning village where the land in question is situated pursuant to notification under Section 4(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. As such, all the proceedings pending before any revenue or Civil Court stood abated in view of Section 5(2)(a) of U.P.C.H. Act. However, the opposite party No. 2 by the impugned order while declaring the suit as abated has committed an error as he has allowed the revision preferred against the order dated 9.8.2005 and has set aside the order dated 9.8.2005. The Board of Revenue has not properly considered the submissions made by petitioner and has also rejected the revision. It is submitted that the suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed on 8.9.1995 by opposite parties which was allowed ex-pate without issuing any notice to the petitioners vide order dated 15.9.1995. On coming to know about the said order petitioners had preferred an application for recall under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which was allowed after hearing the parties concerned vide order dated 9.8.2005. Against the said order respondents had preferred a revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before opposite party No. 2. During pendency of revision notification under Section 4(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was issued in the village concerned on 14.11.2005.
3. The submission is that once the notification under Section 4(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was issued all the proceedings pending before the revenue or Civil Court shall stand abated. As such, the revision preferred by the opposite parties was required to be dismissed as abated. However, the opposite party No. 2 has allowed the revision setting aside the order dated 9.8.2005 and has declared the revision as abated. The effect of the impugned order is that the ex-parte decree dated 15.9.1995 shall stand revived which is not permissible.
4. Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd. Aslam Khan, appearing for the respondents submits that the revision was preferred against an order passed on recall application. Once the consolidation proceedings were initiated the proceedings pending in the revenue Court or Civil Court shall no doubt stand abated but the revision has to be allowed otherwise the order under challenge would remain operative.
5. I have considered the submissions made by parties'' counsel and gone though the records.
6. Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act deals with the effect of notification under Section 4(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Under Section 5(2)(a) of U.P.C.H. Act it has been provided that upon the publication of notification under sub-Section (2) of Section 4 U.P.C.H. Act the consequence would be that every proceeding for correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any Court or authority whether the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated, meaning thereby that all the proceedings pending before any revenue or Civil Court shall stand abated on the issuance of a notification under Section 4(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. The Court in this regard is required to pass an order to that effect. In the present case in view of Section 5(2)(a) of U.P.C.H. Act the decree and order dated 15.9.1995 shall also stand abated after issuance of notification under Section 4(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. The Consolidation Authorities in exercise of their powers shall not take cognizance of any such orders said to have been passed in the suit file under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.
7. In view of above, the order dated 9.8.2005 shall also not have any effect in the consolidation proceedings. With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of.
