SATYA NARAIN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays to quash the revisional order dated 7.3.1''87 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, Camp Fatehpur in Revision no. 247571235 preferred by Respondent no. 2 Ram Asray against the petitioner and another.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent no. 2 (Ram Asray, who was the Revision Petitioner) and Respondent no. 3 (Rajendra Singh Yadav who was opposite party and Chakdar no. 686) entered into a compromise before the Revisional authority, which was accepted and the Revisonal application was disposed of in terms of compromise, but to the prejudice of the petitioner without considering his case and submis sion and making alterations in the lands allotted in his chak and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

(3.) A Certified copy of the amended chart of the Revisional authority shows categorically that the lands we're carved out from the lands of the Petitioner and some lands were also allotted to him The Revisional order does not disclose any reason whatsoever for doing so. The Revisional authority was discharging quasi- judicial functions and, thus, it was its duty to disclose reasons so that this Court could know them and for this infirmity the impugned order is liable to be set aside.