K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Ld. counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 15 -7 -83 passed by the Asstt. Director of Consolidation, allowing an application filed by opposite party No. 2 for setting aside exparte order dated 4 -6 -73 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation.
(2.) LD . counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Gaon Sabha was served and a counsel of Gaon Sabha was heard when the case was decided on merits. I am unable to agree with this contention of the Ld. counsel for the Petitioner in view of the observations in the order itself, wherein it has been mentioned that file does not contain any notice served on the Gaon Sabha. The dispute is in respect of ownership of a tree situate on the land in dispute. Since parties will have an opportunity of contesting the case on merits the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law, fact or jurisdiction so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ld. counsel contended that since no resolution was passed authorising the Pradhan, Gaon Sabha to file restoration application, and, as such, the Dy. Director of Consolidation erred in allowing the said, application. In this connection he referred to a decision reported in, 1982 ALJ 76 and 1113. Since in the present case the revision was between the Petitioner and the Gaon Sabha, and as such, an application for restoration could be filed by the Pradhan, Gaon Sabha without any specific resolution authorising him to file application for restoration. The case law referred to above does not help the Petitioner in the present case. It is not disputed that the Pradhan had filed the restoration application in the present case.
(3.) I find no merit in the writ petition and is accordingly dismissed.;