BRIJ LAL Vs. D D C VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard Sri V. M. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Singh, jarned counsel representing the contesting respondent Musai.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have jointly stated that both these writ petitions may be disposed of finally.

(3.) AS has already been noticed above the Consolidation Officer had affixed 25-5-84 for appearance of the parties in the matter before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It appears that the matter regarding the consideration of the reference was taken up by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 28-5-84. On this date he passed an order accepting the reference with the proposed adjustments. The contesting-respondent Musai thereafter filed an application on 19-12-89 seeking recall of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 28-5-84 alleging that the said order had been passed ex pane. He prayed that the delay in filing the application be condoned and after recalling the order dated 28-5-84 the matter may be heard on merits. In his affidavit filed in support of the application, apart from various allegations the contesting respondent asserted that he had come to know of the order dated 28-5-84 for the first time on 18-12-89. It was also indicated that he was a literate person and his alleged thumb-impression appearing on the referring order as well as the adjustment chart was fictitious. He further asserted that the entire proceedings were farzi and also denied his presence before the Consolidation Officer.