HARKESH Vs. D.D.C., MEERUT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent no.3.

(2.) Against a judgment dated 31.3.1973 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation revision was filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3. Revision was allowed on 28.6.1977 by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Against the said decision original petitioners (who were respondents in the revision) filed restoration application stating therein that they had not been heard. Restoration application was rejected on 17.11.1977. Both these orders have been challenged through this writ petition. In this writ petition stay order was granted which remained in operation till 19.11.2007 when this writ petition was dismissed in default. Thereafter writ petition was restored.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that during pendency of this writ petition respondent nos. 2 and 4 sold their shares in the chaks which had been allotted to them by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 states that respondent no.-3 - Bachanvir has not sold any land. However a joint chak was allotted to original respondent no.2 - Brahm Pal and respondent no.3 Bachanvir who are real brothers. As late Shri Brahm Pal sold his share in the chak as allotted by S.O.C. hence the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation on 28.6.1977 cannot be maintained. Plots/portions which were sold by Brahm Pal had been given by the D.D.C. through his judgment dated 28.6.1977 to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 28.6.1977 cannot be sustained due to action of respondent nos. 2 and 4 i.e. Brahm Pal and Surendra Datt otherwise petitioners would be put to double jeopardy. Accordingly, writ petition is to be allowed without looking into the merit of the case on this ground alone.