JOKHU Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. It has been alleged from the side of the petitioner that the order dated 4-1-2001 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation was ex parte. It has also been submitted that the observations in the order dated 4-1-9001 in second paragraph of the said order that Counsel for both sides have been heard is factually incorrect.

(2.) Before this question could be gone into, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents urged that if the order dated 4-1-2001 is ex parte, the petitioner should apply for setting aside of the ex parte order in stead of rushing to this Court by way of this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was granted time on 16-2-2001 to examine this matter as to why the petitioner should not be relegated to the alternative remedy of moving an application for setting aside of the alleged ex parte order where the questions of fact can be adjudicated and it could be decided whether the order dated 4-1-2001 was ex parte and also whether there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner today again. Sec. 41 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 reads as follows :