GANGA DAYAL Vs. DDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of a dispute relating to the valuation of the plots allotted during consolidation proceedings, which gave rise to filing of an objection on 2nd of June 1997 under Section 9B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This objection under Section 9-B of the Act relates to the statement of principles and an objection decided under the aforesaid provision is subject to appeal. It is also mandatory that before deciding an objection or an appeal, it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to make a local inspection after notices to the parties.

(2.) The facts shorn of details are that the objection which was filed on 2nd of June 1997 had not been formally signed by any of the tenure holders including the petitioner. Nonetheless, the Consolidation Officer after having entertained the objection called for a report from the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 31.07.1997. Thereafter, notices were issued and the parties were allowed to file objection fixing 1st October, 1997 as the date for disposal of the objection. The petitioner and the respondents are at variance on this issue of having received notice from the Consolidation Officer, inasmuch as, the petitioner asserts that he had not received any such notice whereas the contesting respondents have asserted that the notice had been duly served on the petitioner and a service report also exists confirming that the petitioner-Ganga Dayal had affixed his signature on the said notice. The objection so filed was thereafter rejected and the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer pertaining to the valuation of the land was affirmed. The order of the Consolidation Officer dated 01.10.1997 is annexure 1 to the writ petition.

(3.) The dispute arose when the petitioner filed a restoration application after almost 6 years on 04.11.2003 alleging that the order dated 01.10.1997 had been passed ex-parte. The restoration application was allowed on 13.05.2004 on the ground that the contesting opposite parties were not present in spite of the notices and that they had not filed any objections. The Consolidation Officer allowed the restoration in the interest of justice and the order dated 01.10.1997 was recalled. Upon recall of the said order dated 01.10.1997, the petitioner moved amendment applications requesting for change of valuation. According to the respondents, the restoration proceedings had been carried out ex-parte without notice to them and the Consolidation Officer passed an ex-parte order on 31.07.2004 changing the valuation as desired by the petitioner.