S.R.Misra - (1.) A revision filed at the instance of the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was dismissed in default of 22-5-1975. Thereafter the petitioner filed restoration application on 24-5-1975. This application was allowed on payment of Rs. 20/- as cost. Thereafter the same has been dismissed which is said to be on account of illness of the counsel. In any view of the matter, admittedly the revision has not been heard and disposed of on merits. Aggrieved the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the last order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6 - 8-1980.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri B. N. Rai and Sri R. K. Asthana, appearing for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that since consolidation proceedings will finally determine and adjudicate the right and interest of the parties and. since the petitioner has been deprived of hearing by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and, if he is not heard, his right will come to an` end on account of the fault, if any, by the counsel. It was then urged that even if assuming it tor the sake of argument that there was some fault on the part of the counsel of the petitioner that fault cannot be said to be a deliberate one, refusing to restore the revision, although, sufficient cause was made out: and, in view of this it was not a case where the restoration should have been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Counsel for the contesting respondent has pointed out that if a negligence is committed either on the part of the party or on the part of the counsel as once the revision was dismissed in default, thereafter, it was restored on condition, and, the condition was not complied with or default was Committed, it is a negligence and as such, in this aspect of the matter, this Court may not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) HAVING heard the respective arguments of the counsel for the parties and having perused the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6-8-1980, I am of the view that it is clear that there is no decision on merits of the revision fi,Jed by the petitioner. The leaning of the authorities should always be to decide the case on merits and not to reject it on technicalities. Assuming if for the sake of argument that if no affidavit was on record then an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to file the same. Although the case of the petitioner ijs that an affidavit was' filed by the petitioner and the same was on record but subsequently it was misplaced. Nevertheless the fact indicates from the order itself that for no obvious reason a negligence cannot be attributed in such a manner so as to deprive of the petitioner of hearing in revision. In the normal circumstances the argument of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the negligence committed by a party cannot be ignored, may be true, There should be no sympathy with a person who ft negligent of his rights. Law is very clear On the point. However, the present is hot a case of such negligence. Here the right, title aid interest of a person is to be finally decided by the last court of fact i.e. the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In a matter when an authority is called upon to decide finally the right, title and interest of a person and the findings to be recorded by him are those of fact, petitioner cannot be deprived of his valuable rights of hearing on mere technicalities. Thus, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation being based on hyper technicalities cannot be sustained and this Court certainly possess the jurisdiction to interfere with such order.;