JANG BAHADUR SINGH Vs. NAGESHWAR SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. A chak was proposed to the petitioner by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. His brothers were also proposed separate chaks. No objection to that was filed by the petitioner but a third person filed objection before the Consolidation Officer impleading the petitioner as an opposite party on which certain amendments were made by the Consolidation Officer in the chaks. Against that order the petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 preferred a revision before the Deputy Director who allowed the revision ex -parte and restored the chak proposed at Consolidation Officer stage, hence the writ petition. The revision was heard at Baskhari Bazar where the petitioner is working as a civil court employee. Against the order passed by opposite party No. 2 an application for setting aside ex parte order dated 19.5.78. The petitioner filed an affidavit of Sri D.K. Tandon, Advocate stating that he did not appear before opposite party No. 2 the Vakalatnama contained the name of other persons and the name of the petitioner was also there but it was struck out. Sri D.K. Tandon Advocate was also examined. The Deputy Director was of the view that the petitioner himself had a notice of the case and as such he dismissed the review application. Thereafter this writ petition has been filed. The Deputy Director had a jurisdiction to restore the revision application but as he was not satisfied that the petitioner was not aware of the revision application more so when his brothers had appeared in his case he has not committed any error of law in rejecting the application. However, on merits also there appears to be no case for interference as no ground including violation of provisions of U.P. C.H. in the matter has been made out The interim order in this case has already been vacated in the year 1980 with the result that the parties are in possession of their chaks as modified by the Deputy Director and any interference would mean unsetting the settled state of affair.

(2.) IN view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.