Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 1. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Gaon Sabha and rejoinder affidavit thereto has been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the parities agree that the petition may be disposed of finally.
(2.) The submission of Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation by impugned order dated 2.9.1995 Annexure-1 to the writ petition has directed the entries in favour Smt. Kamla (mother of the petitioners) in the revenue record to be expunged and in place directed the name of the Gaon Sabha, respondent No. 2 to be recorded. The ground given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the land in question to the Gaon Sabha and was so entered and without there being any order of any competent authority the name of the petitioner's was entered. It appears that after the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Annexure-1 the petitioner filed an application for recall of the order. The application was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 15.7.1996, Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In this order no finding has been given that the petitioners were given any opportunity of hearing. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the order ex-parte without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Reliance is placed upon the averments made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, in which it is stated that acting on the report of the arranger of the record room without given any notice to the petitioner's mother Smt. Kamla Devi, who was the tenure holder, the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded findings against the petitioners mother and directed her name to be expunged from the record. In the counter-affidavit there is no specific denial about opportunity not having been given and it is only stated in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit that the averments made by the petitioners are matter of record and are denied. There is no specific denial. The undisputed petition, therefore, emerges is that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing before the order Annexure-1 to the writ petition dated 2.9.1995 was issued.
(3.) There is also no finding in the impugned order dated 15.7.1996 rejecting the application for recall of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners by the Deputy Director of Consolidation before he passed the impugned order dated 2.9.1995. In the recall application the petitioner's case was that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had passed the order dated 2.9.1995 without opportunity. It was also alleged that the name of the petitioners over some of the plots were recorded on the basis of order dated 31.3.1968 in case No. 273 under section 9-A (2). The Deputy Director of Consolidation has found that die petitioner has not filed copy of any such order. It has aLso been found that the petitioner did not file any papers in respect of the proceedings of the case Gaon Sabha v. Kamla before Atirikt Adhikari pursuant to the land management Committees alleged resolution dated 3.9.1993 relating to certain plots 666, 628 and 941. In appears that the petitioners did not get proper opportunity as the recall application was essentially based on the ground of want of opportunity. In the circumstances the petitioner, it appears, could not get opportunity file the relevant papers. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which 1 is a copy of the order of this Court wherein similar circumstances the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed without opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved party. It was set aside and the case sent back to him for fresh decision. As such the impugned order dated 2.9.1995 and 15.7.1996 are set aside. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to consider the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who may file the papers thereby. No opinion on merits is being expressed and the orders are being set aside only on the ground of want of opportunity. The Deputy Director of Consolidation would be free to pass any order on merits. The petition is allowed. Petition Allowed.;