SHER SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh and Sri B.K. Solanki learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jai Singh Chandel for the contesting respondent No. 2.

(2.) IN view of the order that is proposed to be passed the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha have not proposed to file any counter affidavit. The parties are agreed that the matter be disposed of at this stage finally without calling for any further affidavits from either of the parties. Accordingly, the matter is being disposed of finally under the rules of the Court.

(3.) THE Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that according to the order-sheet of the said revision, it appears that the petitioner had endorsed his signature and thumb impression and even otherwise on merits since the order had been passed after making a spot inspection, therefore, the restoration application was not maintainable and it was accordingly rejected. Aggrieved the petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the said order on the ground that there was no occasion for the petitioner to file the revision, as he was satisfied with the distributions and adjustment at the level of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and secondly, there was no occasion for the Deputy C Consolidation to have reversed the said position to the detriment of the petal and to the complete advantage of the contesting respondent No. 2. 6 Sri J C Chandel has urged that the said findings have been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation after perusing the records and they arefi of fact, which should not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constiti 7. It is apparent that the real issue is as to whether the petitioner had endorsed his signature or thumb impression on the order-sheet or on the memo of revision as recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. THE said issue could only have been decided after verifying the same and the Deputy Director of Consolidation should not have acted as a handwriting expert. Reference may be had to the decision in the case of Ram Sukh v. Sughara and others, 2000 (91 ) RD 1 55 Para 7. In view of this it was incumbent upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have got the signature and the thumb impression at least verified from the , handwriting expert. Having not done so, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed a patent error by recording his conclusions without completing the formalities of evidence in this regard. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 7.11. 2008 is unsustainable and is set aside. THE matter stands remitted back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for decision afresh in the light of the observations made herein above. THE writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.