- (1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The petitioner prays to quash the order, dated 27th July, 1981, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Civil Lines, Allahabad, in Case No. 83 (as contained in Annexure-4) and the Revisional order, dated 18th January, 1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, in Revision No. 68 (as contained in Annexure-5 ).
(2.) THE sole submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while 'dismissing the revision application filed by respondents No. 2 to 4, the revisional authority quashed the orders, dated 18th July, 1980 and 1st April, 1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer, without issuing any notice to the petitioner or giving any opportunity of being heard to him and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be quashed. To support his submissions, learned counsel took me to the statements made in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the writ petition. The learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4, on the other hand submitted that in fact the revision application was filed by the petitioner himself and hot by respondents No. 2 to 4 and the petitioner wanted to create confusion and legal difficulties, who was present in court when the revision application was called out, heard and thereafter the impugned order was passed doing substantial justice to the parties. A perusal of the impugned remand order shows that the revisional authority has recorded a finding that it was not filed by and on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 but it is also true that no finding was recorded that the revision was preferred by the writ-petitioner, who was opposite-party No. 1 to the revision. There is also no recital in the impugned order to the effect that the opposite-party No. 1, who is the writ-petitioner, was heard. In this view of the matter, I am constrained to hold that the impugned order was passed behind the back of the petitioner.
(3.) FOR the reasons afore mentioned the impugned remand order (as contained in Annexure-5) is set aside and Revision No. 88 is remitted back to the Respondent No. 1 (the Deputy Director of. Consolidation, Allahabad) for fresh disposal in accordance with law, Since the petitioner is before me and there is a serious controversy that it was really he who had filed the revision in the name of the contesting respondents, in the interest of justice the petitioner is directed to appear before, respondent No. 1 along with the copy of this order on of before 23rd. ; January, 1995. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are also directed to appear before, respondent No. Ion the said date. Respondent No. 1 is directed to probe deep into this matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in regard to the claim set forth by either party.;