BECHOO Vs. UPPER COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.K. Singh appeared for respondent No. 2 and the learned standing Counsel who has appeared for respondent No. 1.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7-6-2001 and 29-8-1999 passed by Upper Collector Nagar. Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that Consolidation Officer passed an order rejecting the objection of the petitioner against which Gaon Sabha filed an appeal. The Consolidation Officer passed an order dated. 18-1-1989 rejecting the objection of the petitioner with regard to plot No. 766, 767 and 765. An appeal was filed by the petitioner which was allowed by the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 19-5-1992. Against the said order Gaon Sabha filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the revision there was an interim order. The revision was dismissed in default on 14-11-1996 due to which the interim order also came to an end. The Gaon Sabha filed an application for recall of the order dated 11-8-1999 in which an interim order was passed in favour of the Gaon Sabha on 29-8-1999. The petitioner has filed an application for vacating the said interim order, which application was rejected on 7-6-2001. The order dated 7-6-2001 as well as the earlier order dated 29-8-1989 has been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the revision was dismissed in default on 14-11-1996 and it was not restored when an interim order was granted on 29-8-1999. The Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that before passing, the interim order, the petitioner was not heard. The Counsel for the Gaon Sabha has refuted the submission of the petitioner and has submitted that interim order has rightly been granted. From the facts of the case it is clear that the revision filed by the Gaon Sabha before the Deputy Director of Consolidation is pending against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Counsel for the petitioner has stated that revision has been restored and has been directed to be heard on merit.

(3.) In view of above fact, it is appropriate that the revision itself be decided on merits expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certificate copy of this order. In view of the fact that revision is to be heard on merit and be decided, it is also directed that both the parties shall maintain status quo, regarding possession of land in dispute as existing today till the revision is finally disposed of.