HARBANS Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The petitioner prays to quash, by filing additional court-fee of Rs. 200 which is being kept on the record, the revisional order, dated 29-6-1976 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Etah, Camp Meerut in Revisions Nos. 266, 269 and 272 (appending its copies as Annexure 5 ).

(2.) IN view of the short submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A. K. Yog, I do not consider necessary to narrate the facts in detail. The relevant facts are in a narrow compass. The petitioner was Chakdar No, 363, Respondent No. 2 was Chakdar No. 94 and Respondent No. 3 was Chakdar No. 181. The petitioner had filed Revision No. 266, Respondent No. 2 has filed Revision No. 272 and Respondent No. 3 had filed Revision No. 269. The revisional authority, vide the impugned order, had dismissed the revision application of the petitioner, whereas allowed those of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The submission of Mr. Yog is that the revisional authority has committed a manifest error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner while observing that plots Nos. 1062, 1091 and 1129 belonged to the petitioner where as they belonged to Harbans, son of Nathwa and this fact stands admitted in paragraph 2 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed today by the respondents.

(3.) FOR the reasons aforementioned this writ petition is allowed in part, the impugned order in relation to Revision No. 266, 269 and 272 only is set aside and the Respondent No. 1 is directed to hear and dispose of the aforementioned revision in accordance with law.