DURGA PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ramji Saxena learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Kumar for the heirs of deceased -respondent No. 5. This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by non -inclusion of original plot No. 601 in the proposed chak the petitioner filed an objection. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 2.4.1974 dismissed the same against which he preferred an appeal. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 27.4.1974 allowed the claim of the petitioner and the plot No. 601 was included in his chak. The said order became final and was not challenged by anybody. Opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 also filed an appeal against the same order dated 2.4.1974 passed in some other case -claiming plot Nos. 597, 598, 599 and 600 be included in their chaks, No. claim was made by them with regard to plot No. 601 which was included in the chak of the petitioner on the appeal filed by him by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation nor the petitioner was made a party in the said appeal. Settlement Officer, Consolidation while deciding the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 disturbed the chak of the petitioner and his original plot No. 601 was taken out from his chak. Having come to know about the ex parte appellate order, the petitioner filed a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation consolidated all the revisions vide impugned order dated 7.11.1977 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner whereas revision filed by opposite party No. 5 was allowed.

(2.) THE Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order failed to take into account the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 13.7.1975 had become final as it was not challenged and the claim of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in their appeal was in respect of plot Nos. 597, 598, 599 and 600. It was incumbent upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have considered the fact that the order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation on the appeal filed by the petitioner had become final and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had not made any claim against the petitioner and the petitioner was not even made a party in the appeal filed by them.