MAHESH CHAND Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur, respondent No. 1 dated 11.6.1999 by which he has decided Revision No. 1779, order dated 24.8.1999 by which he has rejected the restoration application of the petitioners and the order dated 4.10.1999 by which he has rejected the review applications.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners' father Geeta Ram was holder of chak No. 162 and after his death, the aforesaid chak devolved between his sons, namely, Mahesh Chand and Suresh Chand, the present petitioners. Sri Abdul Haq was holder of chak No. 46 and after his death, his chak devolved between his three sons, namely, Tizwan, Ishtiyaq and Zahid Hasan, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly Suresh Chand was not made party in the revision and no notice whatsoever has been issued which is apparent from the memo of revision, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, and he was neither issued any notice nor any notice was served. He further submitted that though Mahesh Chand was made party but the notice had not been served and it is wrong to say that notice was served. He further submitted that without hearing the petitioners, the order dated 11.6.1999 was passed ex parte disturbing the chak No. 162 of the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners were neither the parties before the Consolidation Officer nor they were made parties in the appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and, therefore, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation amending the chak of the petitioners was wholly unjustified. He further submitted that once the revision against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was rejected, second revision was not maintainable.