BUDHIRAM YADAV Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K.Rai for the respondent nos.4 and 5.

(2.) IT is not necessary to issue notice to the other respondents at this stage as the main contest is between the petitioner and the respondent nos.4 and 5 on the issue relating to? the petitioner being represented before the Deputy Director of Consolidation through a lawyer. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that they had neither engaged any lawyer nor any summons had been served on them. To be more precise? it was urged that Chanaru the father of the respondent nos.4 and 5 denied the said engagement of a lawyer or having received summon in the proceedings pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order. The objections which were filed by the petitioner as noted herein above and the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the order dated 24.3.2011 the impugned order no where adverts to the filing of the caveat as alleged by the petitioners in their objections nor does it record any finding with regard to the Vakalatnama having been executed in favour of the two Advocates? as specifically stated in the objection filed by the petitioner. This relevant material having been ignored and no finding having been recorded, in the opinion of the Court, vitiates the impugned order.