- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16th July, 1996 passed by the respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE dispute relates to Plot No. 334/1 area 0. 54 acres. THE said plot originally belonged to one Munna Lal uncle of the petitioner. A dispute have arisen between the parties during consolidation operation and the matter reached up to the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. THE sole grievance raised by the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer without affording him any opportunity of hearing. It was submitted that since the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is in violation of principles of natural justice, the said order is liable to be quashed. Heard Sri R. S. Misra, Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vimlendra Tripathi holding brief of Shri A. S. Srivastava, Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. In paragraph No. 17 of the writ petition it has been stated that the order dated 16th July, 1996 passed by the Revisional Court is ex-parte and has been passed without hearing to the petitioner. The further averment is that no notice was ever served upon the petitioner. The Revisional Court has wrongly held that no one was present on behalf of the petitioner in spite of notice. Therefore, there is specific averment made by the petitioner in the petition that no notice was ever served on the petitioner. This specific averment has not been specifically denied by the respondents. The respondent No. 3 has filed counter-affidavit. The averments made in para 25 of the counter-affidavit have dealt with the averments of para 17 of the writ petition. Only this much has been stated by the respondent No. 3 in the counter- affidavit that "if the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is an ex-parte order the petitioner could approach the respondent No. 1, if he feels aggrieved by the said order. It is further stated that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 was made after the due service of notice on the petitioner". This paragraph No. 25 of the counter-affidavit has been sworn on the information received. The respondent No. 3 could not dare to deny the averments made in the writ petition on personal knowledge. Thus it is clearly established that no notice was given to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 before hearing the revision on merits. The order of the respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained, as it has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice.
(3.) IT is indeed a disturbing feature that the respondent No. 1 has made an observation in the impugned order that none was present on behalf of the petitioner in spite of notice. In view of the above the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16th July, 1996 is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to the cost which I assess at Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand only ).;