TEJA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rishi Kant Rai for the respondent No. 2, who states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit. With the consent of the learned Coun sel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts are as under: In the basic year, khata in dispute was recorded in the name of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2, each having half share. An objection under section 9-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act), was filed by respondent No. 2 stating that the name of Teja has wrongly been recorded over the khata inasmuch as he was not the son of Thakuri. Consolida tion Officer vide order dated 25. 4. 1991 rejected the objection. Respondent No. 3 went up in appeal, which was also dismissed against which respondent No. 3 went up in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation finding that the parties were not given any proper opportunity to adduce evidence, vide order dated 20. 5. 1998 remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the same afresh after opportunity to the parties to produce evidence.

(3.) IN reply, learned Counsel appear ing for the respondent has tried to justify the impugned order. It has been submitted that during the pendency of the proceed ings before the Settlement Officer, Consoli dation, only dates were being fixed in a mechanical manner and no opportunity was ever afforded to adduce any evidence.