RAMA NAND Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) The grievance of the appellant is that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, gorakhpur ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Consolidation officer. On the other hand it is contended by the learned counset for respondent no. 3 that if the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is allowed to stand then respondent No. 3 will not have any access to his land as no road has been provided for approaching his land in the Scheme. It appears that because many matters were heard together, this aspect was not properly examined by the appellate authority. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice it would be proper to set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and also the orders passed by the revisional authority and that of the High court and send the matter back to the appellate authority for examining this controversy and deciding the matter afresh. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the appellate authority, and that of the revisional authority and the High court and remit the matter to the appellate authority for deciding afresh whether there was any justification for interfering with the order passed by the Consolidation officer. Obviously, the appellate authority will take into consideration whether any road is available to respondent no. 3 or not. If no road is available for approaching his land, then suitable modification will have to be made in the scheme.