BIKANO AHMAD Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. Dikshit, J. This writ petition is listed for admission. As counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged, the writ petition is being finally disposed of in accordance with Rules of the Court.

(2.) THE Deputy, Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur decided two revisions by order, dated 27-3-1993. THE two revisions were 475/199, Bikamt v, Abdul Rauf and others, which was filed by petitioner and 476/197,' Abdul Hasan v. State & others filed by respondents No. 2. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation by that order allowed both the revisions and re-adjusted the chaks of the parties. An application was moved on 29-3-1993 by opposite party No. 2 Abdul Hasan for setting aside the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. Petitioner uied objection against that application. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated, 25-2-94 allowed the application of Abdul Hasan, recalled his order dated, 27-3-1993 and restored both the revisions to their original number for re-hearing them. THE learned counsel for petitioner has argued that Deputy Director of Consolidation did not consider objection of petitioner wherein petitioner set up the case that the order has been passed after hearing Abdul Hasan. He argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recalled the order without applying his mind to the merits of the matter and without recording necessary finding on. the basis of material on record which shows that the order was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to Abdul Hasan.

(3.) FOR aforesaid reasons the order, dated 25-2-1994 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure-7 to writ petition) is quashed and he is directed to dispose of application, dated 29-3- 1993 of Abdul Hasan opposite party in the light of aforesaid observations. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .