BABU LAL Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri V.S. Singh and Sri N.B. Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 14.10.1983 and 27.8.1982 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation -respondent No. 1.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revision No. 864 preferred by the respondent No. 2 under section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the respondent No. 1 against the orders dated 31.3.1982 and 15.5.1982 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal No. 240 and 256 was allowed by him by the impugned order dated 27.8.1982 (Annexure -3) without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity of hearing. His further contention is that Revision No. 864 on the date of its presentation before the respondent No. 1 was barred by time but the respondent No. 1 without condoning the delay proceeded to hear the revision on merits and decided the same by an ex -parte order. He next submitted that the restoration application moved by the applicant before the respondent No. 1 with a prayer for restoring the revision No. 864 was also illegally rejected by him by his order dated 14.10.1983 without even adverting to the grounds on which the restoration was sought by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1. He also submitted that even otherwise the order passed by the respondent No. 1 on 27.8.1982 is an absolutely non speaking and cryptic order which does not disclose any reason for allowing the claim of respondent No. 2 for being allotted chak on the original holdings of the petitioner comprising of plot Nos. 77, 78/3, 78/2 and 79/8. The appellate authority while accepting the claim of the petitioner for cancelling his first chak which was in the nature of udaan cliak and allotting him his first chak on his original holdings had given cogent reasons in his impugned order but the respondent No. 1 while allowing the revision of the petitioner has failed to record any reason in his order for differing with the conclusions of the appellate authority and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner arid perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as impugned orders and the other material brought on record, I find that there is force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the same are liable to be accepted.