JODHARAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ram Chandra Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 5 and Sri Raj Kamal Singh holding brief of Sri Akhilendra Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proposal made in favour of petitioner by Asstt. Consolidation Officer was on his original holding but the same was illegally set aside by Consolidation Officer while deciding the objection, the order of Consolidation Officer was rightly set aside in appeal and the stage of Asstt. Consolidation Officer was maintained but the revisional court finally allowed the revision filed by the respondent no. 4 by a cryptic order saying only that demand of respondent no. 4 appears to be correct but there is no consideration of the petitioner's case, no reason has been assigned in revisional order and there is no proper compliance of Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by revisional court, hence, impugned revisional order be set aside and order of appellate ourt dtd. 22/10/2021 be restored.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent no. 4 submitted that both parties are co-sharers and they had been adjusted as far as possible as provided under Sec. 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as such, no interference is required in the matter and the petition is liable to be dismissed.