GOPALI Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Virendra Kumar Savita has filed appearance on behalf of respondents No. 2. He has stated that he does not propose to file counter affidavit and the writ petition itself be disposed of.

(2.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Kumar Savita appearing for the respondent No. 2.

(3.) By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order, dated 12-12-2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Sec. 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. An order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 30-10-1999 rejecting the objection of the respondent No. 2. Against the said Older an appeal was filed by the respondent No. 2 which was rejected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 23-2-2000 holding that there is no justification for making any change. A revision was filed by the respondent No. 2 which revision has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 12-12-2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision does not disclose any reason. He has submitted that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation while rejecting the appeal has given reason and the Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing the revision has neither given any reason nor meet out the reasons on which the appeal of the respondent No. 2 was dismissed.