- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 19-2-1997 by Deputy Director of Consolidation by which petitioner's chak No. 212 was disturbed and plot No. 163/3, the original holding of petitioner, was allotted to opposite party No. 2.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner urged that petitioner was neither a party in revision or was he impleaded, the impugned order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing. He further urged that his Original Holding Plot No. 163/3 was allotted to him upto the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation without any reason excluded original plot from Petitioner's chak and allotted to opposite party No. 2 at the revisional stage, hence impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel for opposite party, in reply, referred paragraph 12 of counter-affidavit and urged that through Petitioner was not a party to the revision, but he was impleaded subsequently by impleadment application and petitioner was heard before the impugned order was passed. He further urged that only some portion of plot No. 163/1 was allotted to opposite party No. 2 in accordance with law to make chak rectangular. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully considered the materials available on record.
(3.) IT transpires from the record that Petitioner was not a party in the revision. IT is averred in the writ petition that he was not impleaded by opposite party No. 2 by making any impleadment application. Vague denial has been made by the opposite parties in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit. Date of filing of impleadment application date of order on impleadment application date of Service of notice to Petitioner on impleadment application are not disclosed in the counter-affidavit. In view of the vague denial of the opposite parties of the averments made in paragraph 11 of writ petition and admission of the opposite party No. 2 that there is no signature of Petitioner or his Counsel on the order sheet on any date also makes it clear that Petitioner was not heard. The Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a finding that chak No. 212 is a multi dimensional and the shape of chak will be corrected by amendment. It is clear from the record that Petitioner's original holding consists of Plot Nos. 163/1, 163/2, 163/3, 173/1 and 173/2, he was allotted his chak at two places one on his original holding on plot No. 163/3 and another on plot Nos. 167, 172, 173. By the impugned order, first chak of Petitioner situated on plot No. 163 was taken out and an udan chak was allotted on plot Nos. 171, 172, 169/1 and 169/2. No reasons have been given to the effect that in case it was not possible to allot chak to Petitioner on his original holding, what was the reason for excluding his original holding plot No. 163 and alloty to opposite party No. 2. It is also stated by Petitioner that plot No. 163/3 is situated on the main road.;