- (1.) Heard Shri Triapthi B.G. Bhai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri B.P. Singh for the Respondents.
(2.) This writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. Aggrieved by the chak proposed at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Petitioner filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer, who consolidated various objections and by a common order dated 17.7.1996 decided the same. Objection filed by the Petitioner was allowed and he was allotted chak on Plot Nos. 109 and 110. Admittedly, Plot Nos. 109 and 110 are neither the original holding of the Petitioner nor of the contesting Respondent No. 2, but belongs to a third person. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Respondent No. 2 went up in appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 2.2.1997 on the ground that Petitioner himself had given consent for allotment of Plot Nos. 109 and 110 in the chak of the contesting Respondent. Petitioner moved an application to recall the order dated 2.2.1997 on the ground that no notice was ever served upon him and he never entered appearance in the proceedings and the order passed was an ex-parte order. Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 19.7.1999 finding that the Petitioner was not heard before passing the order dated 2.2.1997 and his chak has been affected, recalled the order and decided the appeal allotting half portion of Plot Nos. 109 and 110 in the chak of the Petitioner and the remaining half in the chak of the contesting Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 preferred a time barred revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 14.11.2002 set aside the subsequent order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 19.7.1999 and maintained the earlier order dated 2.2.1997.
(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Deputy Director of Consolidation without setting aside the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that no notice was ever served upon the Petitioner and the order dated 2.2.1997 was an ex-parte order, wrongly and illegally allowed the revision. It has further been submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has also not recorded any finding that the Petitioner was served with any notice or was heard before passing the order dated 2.2.1997. The next contention of the Petitioner is that revision was time barred and without condoning the delay, Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly and illegally allowed the revision.;