BITTO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER the provisional con solidation scheme petitioner was allotted Chak No. 276 and respondent Maharaj Singh was allotted Chak No. 189. Respon dent No. 5 filed an objection against his Chak on 23-2- 1967 before the Consolidation Officer issued a notice to the petitioner fixing 25-2-1967 for the hearing of the objection. That notice was not served on the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer, however, heard the objection, decided it and made material alterations in the Chak of the petitioner by taking away certain plots from it and sub stituting the same with others.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer on the ground of delay. Petitioner's revision also met the same fate at the hands of the Deputy Direc tor who held that the petitioner had failed to explain the delay of six days; hence this writ petition.

(3.) RULE 49 (3) inter alia provides that the objection under sub-section (1) of Section 21 shall not be deemed to be dis posed of until the aforesaid notice rejecting the objection or, as the case may be, the revised extract has been served on the tenure-holders concerned.