RAM MANOHAR Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ram Swaroop Singh for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Gupta for the respondent. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) dated 22.8.2013, by which the revision filed by the contesting respondents was allowed, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the matter was remanded to the SOC to decide the appeal on merit.

(2.) While allowing the revision, the DDC has recorded a finding that notice issued by the CO has not been served upon the revisionist, accordingly, the order was passed behind his back. In basic consolidation records, the name of the petitioner was not recorded over the land in dispute. The petitioner filed an objection under section 9 of the Act (registered as Case No. 2587). It is alleged that in this case, the statement of Bhaggu was recorded, who admitted the claim of the petitioner and accordingly, the CO by order dated 17.1.1991 directed for recording the name of the petitioner.

(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner submits that notices were issued to all the tenure holders, which were received by Bhaggu, who was the real brother of the respondents and Bhaggu appeared before the CO and got his statement recorded. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that Kamlesh was also present before the CO and signed the order-sheet, filed on page 23 of the writ petition. Accordingly, he submits that the respondents have notice of the proceedings, but they avoided to appear before the CO. In such circumstances, the finding of the DDC is illegal and the revision ought to have been dismissed.