R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) IN this petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed and the Learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that the petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. I have heard Sri G.N. Verma, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V.K.S. Chaudary Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that Respondent No. 3 Bijendra Singh chak holder No. 156 filed Revision No. 1470/445 under Section 48 of the T.J.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, here -in -after referred to as 'Act', questioning the order dated 24th December, 1987 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation by which his chak was altered. This revision was allowed by Respondent No. 1 Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mathura by order dated 28th July. 1990. Respondent No. 1 by his order altered as many as 11 chaks of the village and the chak road and Nali. Respondent No. 2 Naniga filed an application on 30th July, 1990 for recalling the order dated 28th July, 1990 interalia on the allegations that he was not a party in the revision filed by Respondent No. 3 and he never received any notice of the revision and his chak No. 177 has been altered without hearing him. This application was supported by an affidavit filed by his son Ram Ramveer Singh. Respondent No. 1 by his order dated 9th April, 1991, accepted the grievance of Respondent No. 2 on the finding that he was neither a party in the revision nor was he served by any notice and the order dated 28th July, 1990 was ex -parte against him. Respondent No. 1 on the same day restored the revision and set aside his order dated 28th July, 1990 partly so far as it affected chak Nos. 117, 232 and 156. Rest of the order was maintained Some day Respondent No. 1 again decided the revision and allowed the same altering the aforesaid three chaks. It is this order which has been challenged in this writ petition by Petitioner Smt. Ram Devi. Sri G.N. Verma, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the order on various grounds. He has submitted that the Petitioner Smt. Ram Devi has been deprived her original holding which was allotted to her by Respondent No. 1 under the earlier order dated 28th July, 1990. The submission is that the allotment was in consonance with the Section 19 of the Act. No reasons have been recorded for depriving the Petitioner of her original holding. It has been further submitted by the Learned Counsel that the restoration cannot be legally allowed at the instance of one Respondent against another Respondent. The submission of Sri Verma in other words is that the restoration application of Respondent No. 2 Naniga could not be legally allowed so far Petitioner is concerned as she was also one of the Respondents in revision in which order dated 28th July, 1990 was passed. Lastly it has been submitted that the Respondent No. 2 Naniga was served with a notice and the order was passed after hearing and the restoration application could not be allowed. Sri G.N. Verma has produced before me a certified copy of the notice allegedly served on Respondent No. 2 and a true copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to the rejoinder affidavit.
(3.) SRI V.K.S. Chaudhary, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, however, submitted that the Petitioner was allotted her chak on plots No. 955/2, 956/3 and 194. None of these plots were from her original holding. Petitioner failed to satisfy that this allotment was ever challenged by her by filing any objection under Section 20 of the Act at any stage. Similarly Respondent No. 2 was allotted chak No. 117 on his original plot No. but it was never challenged at any stage. In revision filed by Respondent No. 3 Bijendra Singh. (son of Petitioner) no grievance was raised against the chak allotted to Respondent No. 2. The submission of Sri Chaudhary is that the order dated 9th April, 1991 has been passed after hearing the parties and Respondent No. 2 has been restored to plots which were allotted in his chak at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The order is fully justified and no interference is called for. So far as the submission of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the notice was served on Respondent No. 2, it has been submitted by Sri Chaudhary that no such allegations has been made in the writ petition and entirely new fact has been alleged for the first time in rejoinder affidavit and the Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise new grounds at this stage. Sri Chaudhary has relied on the finding recorded by Respondent No. 1 that the Respondent No. 2 was not a party in the revision and on record there is no notice issued in his name.;