JAGPATI Vs. CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a relief of quashing the order dated 16.6.2001 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 13.7.2001 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent No. 1.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner received notice under Z.A. form 49A prescribed by Rules framed under U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951, he filed an objection to the effect that he has not encroached upon chak road and he is in possession only over his chak which was allotted to him during consolidation operation. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 did not afford an opportunity to petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his objection. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 had passed an order evicting the petitioner and imposing damages of Rs. 4,000 upon him by a cryptic order. In support of the order impugned dated 16.6.2001 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the respondent No. 2 has not recorded reason as to why he was not persuaded to believe the objection filed by the petitioner that he has not encroached upon the chak-road ear-marked during consolidation operation. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that aggrieved against the aforesaid order, when a revision was filed before respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 instead of setting aside the aforesaid cryptic order, has affirmed the order passed by respondent No. 2 mechanically with closed mind, which is per se illegal.

(3.) Learned standing counsel. Sri L.F. Tiwari, with feeble voice, made an attempt to support the orders impugned passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.