- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Kaushik holding brief of Sri Irshad Ali and Sri T.A. Khan for the respondent no. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.
(2.) THE matter had been adjourned on 28.11.2011 by the following order:- "THE contention raised is that the Consolidation Officer after making a spot inspection had passed an order for excluding that part of the area from the consolidation operations that was covered by trees said to have been planted by the petitioners. THE appellate authority set aside the order on the ground that the Consolidation Officer has failed to indicate the direction and the location of the area sought to be excluded, and therefore he modified the order. THE petitioner went up in a revision complaining that if the Settlement Officer Consolidation was proceeding to modify the order, he could not have done so without spot inspection and without indicating the location of the trees in the impugned order. THE revising authority apart from the issue relating to delay, also went on to affirm the same, therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Sri T.A.Khan learned counsel for the caveator prays that he shall obtain instructions from his client by day after tomorrow. Put up day after tomorrow." Sri T.A. Khan after having obtained instructions from the respondents submits that the matter can be remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for consideration afresh. Learned Standing Counsel prays that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and the matter be disposed of finally. This dispute relates to allotment over Plot No. 540 of which the petitioner was one of the co-sharers and in view of the nature of the holding, had made a request before the Consolidation Officer to exclude the land from the consolidation operations and register it in C.H. Form 18. However, before the same could be done, the land appears to have been valued and part of it was allotted to the respondent no. 3 on 25.11.2006. The Consolidation Officer ultimately passed an order declaring that half of the said plot No. 540 deserved to be kept out of consolidation operations and accordingly passed an order to that effect.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order the respondent no. 3 filed an appeal contending that this could not have been done as the respondent had already been put into possession after the allocation made in his favour. The appeal was allowed and at the same time the appellate authority upheld the order relating to the part of land being kept out of consolidation operations without indicating the direction of the said plot which was to be kept out of consolidation operations. A revision was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed in default whereafter it was restored and again it was dismissed in default whereupon another restoration application was filed which has been rejected and while rejecting the same the revision also has been dismissed on merits holding that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation on merits does not suffer from any infirmity. Assailing the aforesaid orders, the petitioners contend that if the Consolidation Officer had not indicated the direction of the exclusion of the area of Plot No. 540 for keeping out of consolidation operations, then the Settlement Officer Consolidation or the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have remanded the matter and after the direction was relocated, the issue could have been resolved. Sri Kaushik therefore submits that an erroneous approach was adopted and therefore the impugned orders being vitiated deserve to be set aside. It is for this reason that the matter had been adjourned as this court had found that neither the Consolidation Officer nor the Settlement Officer Consolidation had indicated the direction of the area of the disputed plot which was to be kept out of consolidation operations. In view of the submissions raised and as agreed between the parties, this has to be resolved and for this the authority will have to carry out a spot inspection. This having not been done the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is vitiated.;