GAJAR Vs. D.D.C., BALLIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition one of the order, quashing of which has been sought, is dated 9-9-1970 which was passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. By that order the revision filed by petitioner under Sec. 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in short 'Act') was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 111 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules as certified copy of the order of Consolidation Officer was not filed by petitioner together with his revision application. The petitioner subsequently moved an application for recalling of that order on 14-1-1972. In respect of delay in moving application the petitioner claimed that he came to know about the order in question on 13-1-1972. While that application was pending another application was moved by one Gaya Prasad whose revision was also dismissed on the same ground. On the application moved by Gaya Prasad tor setting aside the order dated 9-9-1970 there is a thumb impression which is said to be of petitioner The petitioner has denied that thumb impression to be his. There is another thumb impression on the order sheet of the case dated 9-9-1970 which is also denied by petitioner The petitioner claimed before Deputy Director of Consolidation by moving an application for setting aside of the order that the thumb impression be sent to finger-print-expert so that it could be proved that the thumb impression on the order sheet of 9-9-1970 and on the application of Gaya Prasad was not his. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the view that as the application for sending thumb impression is belated therefore, he refused to send the thumb impression for verification by expert. Subsequently, he also dismissed the application for setting aside of the order. He held that the application is belated as well as petitioners earlier application, which was moved with Gaya Prasad has been dismissed. For said reason petitioner's application for setting aside the order was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner sought quashing of the said order dated 26-6-1973 also.

(2.) In this case the order dated 9-9-1970 is patently erroneous. The revision application could not be dismissed on the ground that certified copy of the order of Consolidation Officer has not been tiled. Certainly, while dealing with the application the finding has been recorded against the petitioner that he was not present at the time of passim' of the order on 9-9-1970 but this finding could not be upheld for the reason that when petitioner prayed for sending of his thumb impression before the expert to prove that it is not his thumb impression, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has refused to send the same. This virtually amounts to refusing the petitioner an opportunity to establish his case that order sheet of 9-9-1970 as well as the application of Gaya Prasad did not bear his signature. For said reasons the order dated 26-7-1973 is quashed.

(3.) This is very old matter and the question in involved is in respect of order dated 9-9-1970 that the revision could not be dismissed merely because a certified copy of order of Consolidation Officer was not filed. As the matter is too old to be sent back for determining as to whether thumb impression is of petitioner or not, relying upon the principle that liberal view be taken in restoring case, therefore, in the interest of justice the order dated 9-9-1970 is quashed.