- (1.) Heard Sri Namwar Singh for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Tripathi and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav for the respondents.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11.06.2013 rejecting the recall application and 19.04.2001, dismissing the revision of the petitioner and allowing the revision of of Dhananjay Singh (respondent-3), arising out of chak allotment proceedings.
(3.) Plot nos. 333 and 522 along with other plots were original holdings of the petitioner and his other co-sharers, in which the petitioner had 1/4 share. In consolidation, the petitioner (chak no. 79) was proposed first chak on plot no. 333 of the area of 0.684 hectare and second chak on plot nos. 522, 531 and 532 of the area of 0.270 hectare. The petitioner filed an objection claiming his chak on plot nos. 522 and 531. The objection of the petitioner was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner, then, filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 419), which was partly allowed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 12.11.1998 and some area of plot No. 531 was increased in his second chak. Dhananjay Singh (respondent-3) filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 6157), claiming that plot No. 530 was his original holding, on which he was allotted chak but the court below has disturbed his chak. On the notice being served, the petitioner appeared before Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revisson of respondent-3. Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the arguments of the parties in this revision. The petitioner, then filed another time barred revision (registered as Revision No. 7568) on 23.12.2000, against the order dated 12.11.1998, with the prayer of condonation of delay. In the memorandum of revision he has stated that Settlement Officer Consolidation wrongly allotted eastern portion of plot No.531 to respondent-3 and he could know about this fact during arguments in the revision of respondent-3 on 21.12.2000. After filing of the revision by the petitioner, the arguments were again heard on 28.12.2000 and both the revisions were decided by a common order dated 19.04.2001. The revision of the petitioner was dismissed and the revision of respondent-3 was allowed.;