VISHRAM SINGH Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri H.M.Srivatava learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Sajiwan learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

(2.) THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 had no locus to maintain a restoration in revision No.94/104 inasmuch as the respondent no.3 was not at all affected by the passing of the order dated 27.8.2010.

(3.) SRI Ram Sajiwan learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that plot no.3269 was a road side land of which he had been deprived, and that has been clearly mentioned in the restoration application in para 4 copy whereof is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner manipulated his allotment on the pretext that he has been allotted Bachat land whereas the respondent had filed his revision in relation to plot no.3269 which had been wrongly taken out as Bachat land and which came to be allotted to the petitioner.