- (1.) UNDER the provisional con solidation scheme petitioner was allotted Chak No. 276 and respondent Maharaj Singh was allotted Chak No. 189. Respon dent No. 5 filed an objection against his Chak on 23-2- 1967 before the Consolidation Officer issued a notice to the petitioner fixing 25-2-1967 for the hearing of the objection. That notice was not served on the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer, however, heard the objection, decided it and made material alterations in the Chak of the petitioner by taking away certain plots from it and sub stituting the same with others.
(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer on the ground of delay. Petitioner's revision also met the same fate at the hands of the Deputy Direc tor who held that the petitioner had failed to explain the delay of six days; hence this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No one is present to sup port the case of the opposite parties. Rule 49 (3) reads, "Where the Consolidation Officer re jects _the objection, he shall cause a notice of rejection of objection to be served on the tenure-holder. Where, however, in accept ing any, objection, the Consolidation Officer finds it necessary to make any alteration in the Provisional Consolidation Scheme, he shall cause a revised extract in C. H. Form 23 to be served on the tenure-holder con cerned free of cost. The objection under sub-section (1) of Section 21 shall not be deemed to be disposed of until the aforesaid notice rejecting the objection or, as the case may be, the revised extract has been served on the tenure-holders concerned." Under this Rule, therefore, it is incumbent on the Consolidation Officer, when he finds it necessary to make a change in the Provi sional Consolidation Scheme to serve a re vised extract in C. H. Form 23 on the tenure-holder concerned free of cost. In para 9 of the writ petition an allegation has been made by the petitioner that C. H. Form 23 was neither ever issued nor served on her and that she came to know about the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer for the first time on 7-9-1967 when his staff visit ed tike spot in connection with demarcation of the Chaks. In the counter-affidavit filed by Opposite Party Mahraj Singh the only averment made in respect of allegations in para 9 of the petition is that "the Pairokar of the petitioner Bade Singh was aware of all the proceedings as he was present on all dates and occasions." It is thus obvious that the petitioner's allegation that C. H. Form 23 was not served on her has not been denied by any of the opposite parties. It has, therefore, to be accepted as correct.
(3.) RULE 49 (3) inter alia provides that the objection under sub-section (1) of Section 21 shall not be deemed to be dis posed of until the aforesaid notice rejecting the objection or, as the case may be, the revised extract has been served on the tenure-holders concerned.;