KHAIRUNNISHA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation dated 19.4.2001, contained as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The Deputy Director, Consolidation by the judgment impugned in this writ petition has allowed the restoration application filed by the opposite parties and directed that after disposal of the appeal by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, if it is required fresh reference be prepared and be sent after giving notice and opportunity to the parties to the proceedings.

(2.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 3.4.1996. Plot No. 48 was divided as Plot Nos. 48A and 48B, and it is on the basis of the consent of the parties, reference was prepared by the Consolidation Officer. It has been argued by the learned counsel that before the Consolidation Officer when the reference was prepared and forwarded, both the parties were present and they have signed the Order Sheet and, therefore, the Deputy Director, Consolidation has rightly approved the reference vide order dated 29.12.1998. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as the order was passed by the Deputy Director. Consolidation approving the reference with the consent of the parties, filing of the restoration application by the opposite parties was not justified and respondent No. 1 has erred in allowing the restoration application.

(3.) Learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents has submitted that there was no consent on behalf of the opposite parties before the Deputy Director. Consolidation and in fact, the opposite parties were not even heard and he never received any opportunity at the stage of the Deputy Director. Consolidation. In respect to the consent as has been recorded in the reference, as has been forwarded at the stage of the Consolidation Officer. it has been argued by the learned counsel that It was on account of the fraud as has been played on him and the said concession was obtained by petitioner at the stage of Consolidation Officer as the opposite party has been under the impression that both the parties will receive good and bad quality of land but by the reference, he has been allotted only bad quality of land which resulted Into prejudice to the opposite party.