NIHAL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3.7.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby his name has been ordered to be expunged from the land in dispute in reference proceedings under section 48(3) of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 . By the said order one plot had been recorded as pond and the other Navin Parti.

(2.) AGAINST this order the petitioner has filed restoration application alleging that the order was exparte and had been passed without any notice or hearing. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 16.11.2013 has rejected the restoration application saying that order passed by him on 3.7.2013 is complete in itself and the restoration is not in accordance with law and is therefore being rejected. This order dated 16.11.2013 is the second order impugned in the writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State and the Sri Diwakar Singh who represents the respondent No.3 Gaon Sabha and have also perused the record.

(3.) IN the absence of any such consideration and a relevant finding in this regard,I am of the opinion that the order cannot be sustained. While deciding the restoration application it is incumbent upon the court concerned to consider the aforesaid aspects which has not been done in the instant case. Even otherwise it is not disputed that the order dated 3.7.2013 was passed without hearing the petitioner. This is recorded in the order dated 3.7.2013 itself It is also not in dispute that the said order has grave civil consequences.