RAM NATH Vs. D.D.C. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged in the present writ petition on the only ground that the petitioner's chak was disturbed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation when the petitioner was no party in the revision and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. In support of this ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner has annexed the memo of revision filed by Sheo Das to show that Ram Nath, the petitioner was no party to the revision.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents has denied in the counter affidavit the averments made in the writ petition. According to the averments made in the counter affidavit, in the revision filed by Pyare Lal respondent No. 4, Ram Nath the petitioner was one of the respondents. The memo of revision has been annexed in the counter affidavit. It has been further averred that revision of Pyare Lal, Sheo Das and other two revisions were, heard together. The petitioner was served in the revision of Pyare Lal and he was also present at the time of hearing of all the revisions. The averments made in the counter affidavit has not been denied by the petitioner by filing rejoinder affidavit. From the perusal of the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it appears that the petitioner's chak was disturbed in the revision filed by Pyare Lal and from the memo revision filed by Pyare Lal, it is fully proved that the petitioner was party in that revision.

(3.) In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is devoid of merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner had not been able to point out any error in the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which may call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction.