RAM BRIKSHA SINGH SAHDEO SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT OFFICER CONSOLIDATION VIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is directed against judgment dated 31.3.2001 passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation.

(2.) The dispute in the instant petition revolves round chak No. 82 belonging to the petitioner. According to the averments in the petition, the respondent No. 3 staked claim for allotment of this Chak before the Deputy Director Consolidation by filing a revision. The case of the petitioner is that the Deputy Director Consolidation allowed the revision without regard being had to the background of the facts and without reckoning with the objection filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The chequered history of the pendency of this writ petition from 2001 onwards in this Court may be noticed before proceeding further. The writ petition having been instituted, the Court granted six weeks' time on 21.5.2001 to file counter affidavit. Sri L.K. Tripathi who filed power to represent Opp. Party No. 3 was further granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. On 18.2.2003, the case had to be adjourned the illness slip having been put in on behalf of the learned counsel for the Opp. Party No. 3. On 17.7.2003, the case again suffered adjournment on account of illness slip of learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 On 18.12.2003, two weeks and no more time was granted to the learned counsel for the Opp. Party No. 3 to file counter affidavit. Again on the request of the learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3, the case was adjourned on 5.2.2004. The case was again adjourned on 10.5.2004 on account of illness slip of the learned counsel representing Opp. Party No. 3. The petition came to be admitted on 15.7.2004 granting three weeks' time to the counsel for the Opp. party to file counter affidavit. On 30.9.2004 the court was compelled to direct listing of the case peremptorily. Even thereafter on 30.10.2005, the case was adjourned on the illness slip of the learned counsel for the Opp. Party No. 3. In the above perspective, this Court does not view with equanimity the temporizing attitude of the counsel in the matter and is constrained to decline request for further time to file counter affidavit and rules that the matter be heard today.