SHASHANK SRIVASTAVA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) In order to put the controversy in a perspective, certain brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition, are being noticed hereinafter.

(3.) In the aforesaid backdrop, Shri Prem Chandra Chauhan learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the order of C.O. was patently illegal inasmuch as certain observations were made by the D.D.C. while remanding the matter and that order had to be complied with but without making consideration of the order of remand, the C.O. has passed the order which is illegal. He has also pointed out that the issue whether Amar Pal, the original tenure holder, had appeared and given his affidavit that he concurred with the sale deed executed by him in favour of the private respondents dtd. 16/6/1999 ought to have been considered in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act. Whether the original tenure holder namely Amar Pal had received sale consideration was to be adjudicated as well as the fact whether the sale deed in favour of the private respondents dtd. 16/6/1999 executed on the basis of the Power of Attorney said to have been executed by Amar Pal in favour of the husband of private respondent No. 3 and whether this transaction was valid in law, ought to have been considered. It is urged that these issues were not taken note of by the Consolidation Officer while affirming the earlier order dtd. 7/8/1999. Consequently the order passed by the C.O. was patently illegal. In the aforesaid circumstances, these issues were to be considered afresh, hence the order of D.D.C. was bad in the eyes of law as the D.D.C. should not have intervened with the order of S.O.C. and by allowing the revision the order of the D.D.C. has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice.