- (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K.Rai for the respondent nos.4 and 5.
(2.) IT is not necessary to issue notice to the other respondents at this stage as the main contest is between the petitioner and the respondent nos.4 and 5 on the issue relating to? the petitioner being represented before the Deputy Director of Consolidation through a lawyer. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that they had neither engaged any lawyer nor any summons had been served on them. To be more precise? it was urged that Chanaru the father of the respondent nos.4 and 5 denied the said engagement of a lawyer or having received summon in the proceedings pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. To this a clear objection was taken by the petitioner, copy whereof is Annexure 13 to the writ petition, and in the said objection it has been stated that the respondent Chanaru, who was represented by Chiryau Prasad Srivastava and Randhir Singh, Advocates was duly heard inasmuch as a caveat had also been filed by them. This has been categorically stated in para 5 of the said objection. Sri Ashok Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is only on the basis of a doubt that the Deputy Director of Consolidation? has come to the conclusion that the summons had not been served on the respondents whereas he failed to record any finding with regard to the lodging of the caveat and respondents being represented through counsel. He therefore submits that the impugned order proceeds by ignoring a relevant aspect relating to the claim set up by the respondents before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to which a clear objection was taken by the petitioner, and having failed to record any finding thereon, the impugned order is vitiated.
(3.) I have perused the impugned order. The objections which were filed by the petitioner as noted herein above and the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the order dated 24.3.2011 the impugned order no where adverts to the filing of the caveat as alleged by the petitioners in their objections nor does it record any finding with regard to the Vakalatnama having been executed in favour of the two Advocates? as specifically stated in the objection filed by the petitioner. This relevant material having been ignored and no finding having been recorded, in the opinion of the Court, vitiates the impugned order. At this stage Sri Rai learned counsel for the respondents submits that he does not propose to file a counter affidavit at this stage and the matter can be remitted back before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for a decision afresh.;