BADLOO Vs. D.D.C. MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the son of one Raghubeer Singh while respondent no.4 is the son of one Yad Ram. During the consolidation proceedings in the Village, a reference under Section 48(3) of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) was made to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'D.D.C') i.e. respondent no.1 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as 'S.O.C') vide his order dated 25.7.1985.

(3.) Consequently, Case No.2065 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 was registered before the respondent no.1. The occasion for the reference was that there was a partition of Plot Nos.291/72 and 292 between the respondent no.3 (Chakdar No.219), respondent no.4 (Chakdar No.504) and respondent no.5 (Chakdar No.363). Through his order dated 25.7.1985, the S.O.C had recommended re- arrangement of Chaks between respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 as a result of the said partition. A perusal of the order dated 25.7.1985 shows that no recommendation regarding the petitioner or rearrangement of his Chaks was made by the S.O.C. The respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 21.5.1990 accepted the reference made by the S.O.C but by the same order also re-arranged the Chak of the petitioner which was not a part of the order dated 25.7.1985. When the petitioner came to know about the order dated 21.5.1990, he filed a recall application on the ground that the order was passed without giving him any notice or opportunity of hearing and he had no knowledge of the case. In the recall application, it was stated that the petitioner had not put his thumb impressions on the notices ostensibly issued to him and the petitioner was never served any notice in the case. Along with the aforesaid recall application, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1903 praying that the delay in filing the recall application be condoned. The D.D.C, Muzaffarnagar, i.e. the respondent no.1 vide his order dated 27.8.1993 dismissed the recall application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the notice issued to the petitioner contained the signature of one Satyapal who was a witness of service of notice and therefore, the allegations of the petitioner that no notices were served on him cannot be believed. The orders dated 27.8.1993, 21.5.1990 passed by the D.D.C have been challenged in the present writ petition.