MANGROO RAM CHAMAAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contention raised is that the Collector has passed the impugned order in a cryptic way without following the due process of law and has not recorded findings in respect of all the plots that were in dispute.

(2.) The contention raised is that public utility land could not have been given in exchange nor the entries could have been made by the consolidation authorities in respect of such category of land.

(3.) Having perused the entire records and the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner this Court has already dealt with such matters In the case of Adnan Ahmad v. Sana Ullah and Ors.,2010 1 ADJ 448 and Ravindra Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2010 1 ADJ 470, has held that the due process of law even otherwise has to be followed in order to rectify the error if any after giving a fair opportunity to the person affected to contest the matter. The Collector as a matter of fact ought to have passed an order to approach the consolidation authorities for the redressal of such grievances and the rectification of wrong entries or the setting aside of such orders that are adverse to the interest of the Gaon Sabha.