MANGROO Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the for the State.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the orders dated 23.07.1984, 09.08.1983 and 07.05.1983 passed by respondent no.1 and 2 respectively. The petitioners filed an objection against the chak allotted to them under the proposed Consolidation Scheme before the Consolidation Officer claiming that they be allotted their chak on the northern portion of their original holding comprising of plot no. 377. The petitioner's objection was allowed in part by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 17.05.1983 (Annexure -3). The Consolidation Officer altered the petitioners' chak by allotting some area of northern portion of 377 to their chak while remaining area of their chak comprised of plot no. 420.

(3.) AGGRIEVED the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 17.05.1983 passed by respondent no.2 which was numbered as 1083 and allowed by him by his order dated 23.06.1983. The Settlement Officer Consolidation accepted the petitioners' claim for allotment of their entire chak on the northern portion of plot no. 377. The order dated 23.06.1983 was challenged by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 by filing revision no. 733 under Section 48 of the C.H.Act before respondent no.1 which was allowed by him by his order dated 09.08.1983 (Annexure -6). The respondent no.1 by the impugned order restored the chaks allotted to the petitioner and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioners moved an application for recalling the order dated 09.08.1983 and restoring the revision no. 733 to its original number on the ground that the order dated 09.08.1983 was passed by him without hearing them. The said restoration application was rejected by the respondent no.1 by his order dated 08.08.1983 (Annexure -7) with the finding that the order dated 09.08.1983 was passed by him after hearing the petitioners. While recording the aforesaid finding the respondent no.1 has in his order referred to the order sheet dated 04.08.1983 of revision no. 733 on which date the revision was heard by the respondent no.1 and judgment reserved by him, which contains the thumb impression of the petitioner.