KALLOO Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MAHOBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the supplementary affidavit filed today.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the entire proceedings before the Consolidation Officer were ex parte and therefore the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have erred in not allowing the restoration application of the Petitioner and have proceeded on merits.

(3.) Learned Counsel with the aid of the supplementary affidavit submits that there was a document available on record which indicates that it was Parsadwa who was entered as a hereditary tenant in Ziman - 8 and therefore it cannot be presumed that the property had been acquired by the ancestors. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the Consolidation Officer committed a manifest error by recording the names of the Respondents 4 and 5.