RAMADHAR YADAV Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vijay Pratap for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.9.2013 rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner and order dated 28.2.2001 dismissing the revision of the petitioner, order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 29.5.1998 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.4.1997 dismissing the objection of the petitioner in chak allotment proceedings.

(2.) DURING consolidation, the petitioner was allotted two chaks, the first chak was allotted on plot no. 91, 167 and 169, etc. and the second chak of the petitioner was allotted on plot no. 491. The petitioner filed an objection that he has his private source of irrigation on plot no. 91, as such, the second chak of the petitioner be deleted and it's valuation be adjusted in his first chak on plot no. 91, 167 and 169, etc. The objection of the petitioner was heard by CO who by order dated 30.4.1997, found that the second chak of the petitioner was on his original holding, while the petitioner was given valuation according to his original valuation in his first chak on plot no. 91. In such circumstances, the valuation of second chak of the petitioner cannot be allotted in his chak. On these findings, the objection of the petitioner has been dismissed.?

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that it is alleged that the arguments in the revision were heard on 21.12.2000, however, the President of District Bar Association has issued a certificate that there was a resolution for walk -out of the Court of Sri R.D. Bharti, Chief Revenue Officer, from 20.12.2000, which continued throughout the month of December, 2000. Accordingly, the order passed by Sri R.D. Bharti on the basis of arguments dated 21.12.2000 is illegal and no argument was advanced by his counsel before him due to resolution of the District Bar Association. A xerox copy of the order sheet has been attached on page 60 of the writ petition, which shows that the order sheet dated 21.12.2000 on which the arguments were heard, was signed by the counsel appearing for the parties. There is no denial that the signature contained in the order sheet dated 21.12.2000, was not the signature of the counsel for the petitioner. In such circumstances, the recall application was not maintainable.