R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.10.2000 passed by the Depute) Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the contesting respondents No. 2 to 4.
(2.) It appears that the Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed the chal of the petitioner. The contesting respondents filed objection against the same. The matter was thereafter referred/ to the Consolidation Officer for disposal The Consolidation Officer after perusing the material on the record dismissed the objection filed by the said respondents: Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, ai appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a revision before the Depute Director of Consolidation. In the revision as is evident from the Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition (memo of revision), the petitioner Raj Nath was not impleaded at one of the respondents. The Depute Director of Consolidation without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without noticing that he was one o the respondents allowed the revision b the impugned order against him. Hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitions submitted that the impugned order ha been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation! Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', inasmuch as the revision has been allowed by ti Deputy Director of Consolidation without affording an opportunity of hearing to ti . petitioner. The impugned order i therefore, liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that an application for impleadment of the petitioner was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on which notices were issued. Therefore, the impugned order was quite valid and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.;