VIKRAM SINGH Vs. D D C AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the judgement and order dated 26.2.2001 passed by respondent No. 1- Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), Bulandshahr.

(2.) The facts of the case are that against allotment of Chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.O.C.'), appeals were filed by the villagers before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'), which were disposed by order dated 16.12.1990 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bijnor at Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.S.O.C.')

(3.) It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was satisfied with the judgement dated 16.12.1990 and the Chaks allotted to him through the aforesaid judgement and order of A.S.O.C. and therefore, did not challenge the same. However, the order dated 16.12.1990 was challenged by respondent No. 2 under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1955') before respondent No. 1 through Revision No. 1518. Revision No. 1518 was filed on 26.3.1991. It has further been stated that against the order dated 16.12.1990 passed by A.S.O.C., a restoration application was filed by one Shri Peetam Singh, which was dismissed on 29.11.1995. The aforesaid order was not challenged by Shri Peetam Singh, but the respondent No. 2 challenged the same under Section 48 of the Act, 1955 before respondent No. 1 by filing Revision No. 1753. Revision No. 1753 was filed on 8.12.1995. Subsequently, Revision No. 1753 was dismissed in default vide order dated 30.11.1998 passed by respondent No. 1. Thereafter restoration application was filed by respondent No. 2 on 31.5.1999 praying that order dated 30.11.1998 be recalled and Revision No. 1753 be heard on merits. The aforesaid application dated 31.5.1999 was allowed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 6.3.2000 and Revision No. 1753 was restored to its original number. Subsequently, Revision Nos. 1518 and 1753 were consolidated by respondent No. 1, who vide order dated 26.2.2001 decided the same.