BADRI PRASAD Vs. CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has inadvertently mentioned the date of order as 18/1/2001 in place of 8/1/2001 in his order dtd. 4/12/2021. In fact, the earlier order passed on the restoration application is dtd. 8/1/2001.

(3.) In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed, this Court proceeds to decide the writ petition finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties, without calling for respective affidavits of the parties in the present writ petition (i.e. counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit) and without putting notice to the remaining respondent Nos. 5 to 11 with liberty to them to move a recall application, in case any fact and details, as mentioned in the present writ petition, are found to be incorrect.