BIRKHA Vs. THE STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal was presented before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by Sri Mahesh Prasad Bhatnagar Vakil, on behalf of the Petitioner Birkha, with the Vakalatnama accepted by the Vakil; but it was inadvertently not signed by the Petitioner. The appeal was originally filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(2.) THE delay in the presentation of the appeal was condoned by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the defect in the Vakalatnama was not given any weight. Hence the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) entertained the appeal and after hearing on merits remanded it to the Consolidation Officer for writing a proper judgment. The Respondents Brahma Singh and Shiam Singh, then preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who took a different view and held that the appeal had not been properly presented.

(3.) IN para 12 of the petition the Petitioner also alleged that he was present at the time of the presentation of the appeal. This has not been controverted in the counter affidavit. Consequently, it can be accepted that the Petitioner was present at the time of the presentation of the appeal and it was by over sight that he had not signed the Vakalatnama.