JAHIRUNNISHA Vs. U P SANCHALAK CHAKBANDI BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was aggrieved by an order dated 3.8.2009 said to have been passed in proceedings under Section 12 of The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the strength of an alleged compromise. The said order has been straightway challenged in a revision by the petitioner on the ground that no such order could have been passed on the basis of an alleged compromise and that too even without any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that it was not in compliance with the Rule 25-A of The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954.

(3.) The Deputy Director of Consolidation entertained the said revision and passed an interim order on 16.8.2011. This appears to have been done in view of the Suo motu powers conferred on the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act.