GULAB Vs. D P C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ peti tion is directed against the order of Assistant Director of Consolidation dated 22-2-1990 and the subsequent order passed by him on 11-12-1990.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that respon dents 2 to 4 filed an application for making a reference in respect of chak No. 1629. THE Consolidation Lekhpal submitted a report on 30th September, 1988. This report was forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolida tion Officer on 14-2-1989. THE Assistant Director of Consolidation accepted the reference by his order dated 22-2-1990. THE petitioners aggrieved against the said order filed writ petition No. 10345 of 1990 before this Court, In the writ petition the Counsel for the petitioner pressed only on the point that the Assistant Director of Consolidation had passed by impugned order without hearing the petitioners. THE Court disposed of the petition with the direction that in case the petitioners so choose may submit an application to recall the order dated 22-2-1990 on the ground that they were not heard. After the said order was passed the petitioners filed an application to recall the order dated 22-2-1990 on the ground that they were not heard. THE Deputy Director of Consolida tion respondent No. 1 has rejected this application vide order dated 11-12-1990 on the finding that the petitioners were heard by the Assistant Director of Con solidation when the order dated 22-2-1990 was passed.

(3.) I have perused the order dated 6-4-1990 passed by this Court. The relevant part of tire order is quoted hereunder:- "the only point raised by the Counsel for the petitioners was that the Assistant Director of Consolidation has passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioners. Thus there was denial of the principles of natural justice. This point is a pure question of fact and cannot be gone into by this court in writ jurisdic tion. The petitioners may file a fresh applica tion before the D. D. C. in case they so choose, before the Assistant Director of Consolidation to recall the order dated 22-2-90 on the ground that they were not heard. " It is clear that the only point urged before the Court was that the petitioners were not heard. It was open to the Counsel for the petitioner to urge all other points. Although the grounds were taken in the writ petition but only one point was pressed. In case the petitioners chose to urge only one point in the writ petition and such point is dealt with by the Court while disposing of the writ petition, it is not open to the petitioners to urge other points afterwards on the ground that as on the one point the matter has been decided the other points may be taken for considera tion. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 22-2-1990 when the same order was challenged in the earlier writ petition. The application filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to recall the order dated 22-2-1990 on the ground that they were not heard has been rejected vide order dated 11-12-1990 on the ground that the allegation of the petitioners that they were not heard when the order was passed on 22-2-1990, is incorrect. There is no legal infirmity in the order dated 11-12-1990. It is a question of fact as to whether the petitioners were heard by the Assistant Director of Consolidation before the order dated 22-2-1990 was passed by him.