K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. Opposite Party No. 3 has filed counter affidavit in opposition of the writ petition. Since Petitioner's Counsel stated that he does not want to file a rejoinder affidavit the writ petition was heard on merits.
(2.) I have perused the impugned orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as well as by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: It appears that against the allotment of chak the Petitioner had filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer. This objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 8th July 1981. Aggrieved by this order the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 13th July 1981. It has come in the counter -affidavit that on the date the appeal was filed 20th July 1981 was fixed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Counsel for the Petitioner was informed about that date but since no one appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, who was the Appellant before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), the appeal was disposed of on merits by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dt. 20th July 1981. The Petitioner filed an application for restoration the next day, i.e. on 21st July 1981 and prayed that the order dated 20th July 1981 be recalled and the appeal be heard and disposed of on merits as the order passed on 20th July 1981 was an ex -parte order. This application was rejected by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 3rd November 1981. Aggrieved by this order the Petitioner filed a revision which was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 20th October, 1982. These three orders passed by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 have been challenged in this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that on 20th July, 1981 when no one appeared on behalf of the Appellant the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) should have dismissed the appeal in default instead of proceeding to decide it on merits and as such when on 21st July 1981 an application was moved by the Petitioner then the order should have been recalled and the appeal should have been heard on merits. Referring to order dated 3rd November 1981 by which his application was rejected learned Counsel pointed out that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has rejected the application on the ground that apart from showing sufficient cause of absence the Appellant should have also shown that some injustice was caused and he was prejudiced by the order which was passed in appeal on merits and since in his opinion the order dated 20th July 1981 was just and proper and as such he rejected the application. Learned Counsel urged that on similar grounds the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also rejected the revision. He thus urged that the Petitioner's restoration application has been rejected on insufficient and erroneous ground and the orders thus deserve to be quashed.
(3.) IN reply learned Counsel for the opposite party urged that the Petitioner's Counsel was informed of the date of hearing in the appeal but inspite of knowledge he failed to appear and as such the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) rightly disposed of the appeal on merits.;