THAGAI Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The petitioners pray to quash the revisional order; dated 29-11-1990 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur allowing Revision No. 1057 of Respondents 2 to 6. The main thrust of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the revisional authority being a quasi judicial authority was required to take into account the submissions made by the petitioners, who were opposite parties before him, and appreciate them whereas neither the submission made on behalf of the petitioners has been mentioned in the revisional order nor has the revisional authority considered two apparent facts which were found by the authorities below namely that on Plot No. 103 which belong to petitioner No. 1 Thagai there exists 12 Sheesham trees as found by the Consolidation Officer in his order as contained in Annexure-4 and that the petitioners who were Chakdars Nos. 128 and 291 were very small tenure holders in comparison to the contesting respondents, who were petitioners, and thus erroneously allotted Plot No. 103 belonging to petitioners to those respondents.

(2.) IN my view the case requires remission as the aforementioned aspect of the matter has not been considered by the revisional authority.

(3.) LET a writ of certiorari issue accordingly. Petition partly allowed. .