SUDERSHAN Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.S. Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Awdhesh Singh, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents.

(2.) Prayer is for quashing the order dated 21.8.2003, passed by Respondent No. 2 in two revisions, i.e. Revision Nos. 1366B/54, Kharbhan and Ors. v. Videshi and Ors. and Revision No. 1355/545, Rama Shankar and Ors. v. Videshi and Ors. and order dated 21.5.1997, passed by Respondent No. 3 Annexures 6 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.

(3.) The dispute is regarding allotment of chak. The Petitioner filed objections under Section 20(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the propriety of order of allotment of chaks to the Petitioner. The Consolidation Officer decided the objections vide order dated 30.8.1993. Contesting Respondent No. 4 Videshi aggrieved by the order dated 30.8.1999 filed an Appeal No. 879 under Section 21(2) of the Act before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Ghazipur. Grievance of the Petitioner is that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation clubbed a number of appeals and without making a spot inspection and without affording any opportunity of hearing made alterations in chaks, whereby udanchak, which was not on the original holding of the Petitioner was given vide order dated 22.5.1997. sanshodhan talika was also appended to the said order. Two revisions were preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide Revision No. 1355/545 challenging the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The revision preferred by Kharbhan and other was dismissed but the revision filed by the Petitioner was allowed. The order passed in revision of Kharbhan was not challenged and it became final. The instant dispute is confined to the revision filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No. 4 Videshi. The order of the Deputy Director Consolidation was challenged by Respondent No. 4 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 34690 of 2009 against the order of the D.D.C. During the pendency of the writ petition, Respondent No. 4 filed restoration/recall application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to recall the same order, which was impugned in the writ petition. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the application and simultaneously decided the revision on merits. Submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation condoned the delay of more than three years, holding that Respondent No. 4 had No. knowledge about the order dated 31.7.1999 till 14.11.2002.