DINESHWAR PRATAP SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OR CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Smt. Shikha Sinha learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Pankaj, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. This is an utterly frivolously writ petition. C.O. decided the matter ex -parte. S.O.C. On appeal only remanded the matter to the C.O. for decision of the main controversy afresh after hearing the parties. Against the said order petitioner who claims to be adopted son of Badri Prasad, filed Revision No. 1014 of 2012 -13 Dineshwar Pratap Singh v. Smt. Bittoo Singh and an -others in which some ultra technical points were raised. D.D.C. Gonda rightly rejected those contentions and dismissed the revision on 19.10.2013, hence, this writ petition.

(2.) ONE of the technical grounds raised before the Court below and repeated before this Court was that the date was preponed by the S.O.C. However, it has been held by the Reivisonal Court that on all the dates petitioner was also heard by S.O.C. Normally in the order setting -aside ex -parte order, no interference is made in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner admits that in the mutation proceedings in which name of petitioner was recorded, respondent No. 3 was not even a party and only Gaon Sabha had been made party. Mutation order gassed on such an application can never e sustained. Accordingly, even if there is some technical defect in the order of S.O.C. and D.D.C. writ Court can not interfere and set aside those orders as the effect of setting aside those orders would be to revive the order of the C.O. Which was utterly illegal. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.