SARJU Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDERS dated 27th September 1971 and 26th July 1972 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation deciding the revision in terms of compromise and rejecting restoration application because petitioner's son appeared to have entered into compromise are assailed in this petition.

(2.) WHAT happened that long after publication of statement of principles u/Sec. 19 and even after decision of appeals etc. arising out of objections filed u/Sec. 20 opposite parties filed a time barred objection which was rejected by Consolidation Officer. In appeal the opposite party produced an application purported to have been on behalf of petitioner accepting the claim of opposite party that a chak may be allotted to him near his house. As application was of a date prior to the date of decision by Consolidation Officer and petitioner had not appeared to verify it the appellate authority was not satisfied of its authenticity, therefore did not accept it. The appeal was also dismissed. But before Deputy Director the opposite party succeeded. The revision was allowed in terms of compromise. When petitioner came to know of it he moved an application for setting aside of the order as he had not entered into any compromise. This application was rejected because the compromise was signed by petitioner's son. And in the application filed for setting aside of order the signature of son was not denied. It also appeared to Deputy Director that as compromise was signed by petitioner's son he must have been looking after petitioner's case, therefore, it was not necessary to recall the order.

(3.) IN the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27th September, 1971 and 26th July, 1972 are quashed. He is directed to decide revision on merits in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.