CHHIDDA Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioners, who are members of the Consolidation Committee of Village Tarkwalia Sahebganj, pray to quash the orders dated 27-10-1987 passed by the: Assistant Director of Consolidation, Deoria (Respondent No. 1) in Revision Nos. 84, 1014, 1086, 1090, 1100, 1103. 1104, 1151, 1152 and 1256 (as contained in Annexure-2) and the order dated 12.3.1988 passed by Assistant Director of Consolidation, Deoria in Restoration Application No. 333 (as contained in Annexure-4).

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended as follows : (i) Respondent No. 1 has committed an apparent error of law in rejecting the prayer for re-hearing of the revision cases through Restoration Application No.333 inasmuch as a grievance was made on behalf of the petitioners that local inspection by Respondent No. 1 was made behind their back and 95% of the chak holders, besides Respondent No. 1 never gave any opportunity of hearing indicating that he intends to nullity the entire scheme and thereby the order dated 12.10.1987 was passed violating the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention aforementioned, the learned counsel took me to the record including Paragraphs 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the writ petition. (ii) THE impugned order was passed by the Respondent No. 1 at the direction issued by the Joint Director of Consolidation from Headquarter at Lucknow.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner in reply contended as follows : (i) THE records which contain the general ;and individual notices do not indicate that the revisional authority ever communicated that he intended to nullify the entire consolidation scheme and on this ground alone the impugned orders are liable to be quashed, (ii) It is true that petitioner No. 4 Mitthu was not impleaded as a party to the recall petition but he was also not impleaded as party to any of the ten revisions nor was he noticed, yet the entire consolidation scheme has been nullified which shows that the lands allotted in his chaks have been altered without issuance of any notice and giving of any opportunity of being heard and accordingly the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.