Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri D.N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Yadav, who have accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 4, the Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State -respondents. The petition is directed against an order dated 17.7.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 194 of 2008 (Panna Lal v. Gaon Sabha). The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot No. 615.
(2.) IT appears from the record that an objection under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the petitioner alleging therein that he is in possession over plot No. 615 while he had been proposed chak on plot No. 636. A prayer was, therefore, made for allotment of plot No. 616 on the ground that plot No. 636, where the chak had been proposed, was being used as a dumping ground for dumping refuse. The objection filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer as also the Settlement Officer, Consolidation but was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Subsequently, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was recalled on a restoration application and after the matter was restored, the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 17.7.2014 has dismissed the revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the restoration application filed by the respondents was allowed without any notice or information to the petitioner. He came to know about the restoration application only after it had been allowed. The second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there were various reports of the consolidation authorities in his favour. Even after the matter was restored, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had called for a fresh report from the consolidation authority, which was duly received but was not considered while passing the impugned order. He has further submitted that there was a statement made by the Gram Pradhan that the Gaon Sabha has no objection in case the relief claimed by the petitioner is granted.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record as also the impugned order, it emerges that the initial order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in favour of the petitioner was passed on the ground that the petitioner was allotted plot No. 615 on the reasoning and this plot was recorded as 'Navin Parti'. This fact was contrary to the record. Plot No. 615 was not land recorded as 'Navin Parti' but was reserved for 'Harijan Abadi.' The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was recalled on the ground that it has been based on a misconception of fact.;