ZOHRA FATMA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders dated 10-7-1979 and 24-8-1979.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and they are these. In proceedings under section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) a revision was filed by the petitioner as also by Respondent no. 2 and both the revisions were decided by the order dated 10-7-1979. THE revision filed by Respondent No. 2 was allowed and that filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It was stated in the order that both the parties have expressed their consent to the proposed amendments in the chaks. But the petitioner filed a restoration application stating that she did not express any such consent rather Respondent No. 2 was on inimical terms with the petitioner and as the petitioner was a deserted woman and the erstwhile husband after desertion keeps enmity with the petitioner and he, in collusion with Respondent No. 2, in order to just harm the petitioner got the impugned order dated 10-7-1979 passed in such a way, as if the said order contained a statement that she was also agreeable to the proposed amendment in the chak of the Respondent No. 2. In fact she did not agree. No notice fixing date in the revision was ever served on her nor she engaged any counsel and the entire proceedings were fraudulent. A true copy of the petitioner's application has been filed as Annexure ' 3 ' to the writ petition. But the Deputy Director of Consolidation without applying his mind to the restoration application stated that there was no provision for review and consequently dismissed the same by the impugned order dated 24-8-1979. Against these orders the present petition has been filed.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not without substance. It is a fact that the restoration application was filed which contained allegations that the petitioner was deserted by her husband who is inimical with the petitioner, and just to help his cousin brother Respondent No. 2 Imtiaz Husain, he has managed to get the order in favour of Respondent No. 2 and that no notice of the revision was served on her nor she had engaged any counsel. These were the allegations in the restoration application and not in the review application as is clear from the prayer contained in the restoration application. It is also very surprising that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not care to look into the restoration application. Rather he passed one sentence order that ' there was no provision for review, hence this review application is rejected. '