ABBAS Vs. DDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

(2.) MR . Gajendra Tripathi, Brief Holder for State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 1 and 2. None appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3 and 4 although, Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 23.03.2001 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Roorkee, Haridwar; judgment and order dated 12.12.2002 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Roorkee, Haridwar and judgment and order dated 27.02.2003 passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation, Haridwar.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , Chaks No. 23, 25, 26 and 29 were proposed to be allotted to the petitioner by Assistant Consolidation Officer with the consent of Consolidation Committee; respondents no. 3 and 4 did not file any objection to the proposal prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer; therefore, Chaks proposed to be allotted to the petitioner were allotted to the petitioner and mutation was carried out, as per order dated 11.09.1998 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer; in the year 2001, respondents no. 3 and 4, herein, preferred an appeal before Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation along with application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the order dated 11.09.1998; Appeal, so filed, was decided vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2001 thereby making allotment of Gata Nos. 25/2 and 25/3 in favour of respondents no. 3 and 4, herein; feeling aggrieved, petitioner, thereafter, moved an application seeking recall of the order dated 23.03.2001 stating therein that no notice was ever issued to the petitioner, on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal as well as on the appeal; and application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and appeal were allowed in one stroke without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, herein; restoration application, so moved by the petitioner, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2002; thereafter, petitioner preferred revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2003; feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred present writ petition.