S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri I.N. Singh and Sri Ajai Yadav, Advocate in support of the writ petition, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Tripathi, learned Advocate who appears for respondent No. 5.
(2.) The Court has examined the averments as made in the writ petition, counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and documents as has been placed on record along with rival pleadings.
(3.) Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that passing of the order by the respondent No. 2 dated 28.12.2004 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) is not only illegal but that is totally without jurisdiction and in violation of Principle of Natural Justice. Submission is that in the manner and in the way the impugned order has been passed shows arbitrary exercise which has no lawful justification. Submission is that admittedly Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chak against which some objections were also filed before tire Consolidation Officer and at the same time it is said that certain complaints which is said to have been sent by large number of persons also came which is said to have been decided by Collector without waiting result on disposal of the objections. It is submitted that in haste report from the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Additional District Magistrate was obtained and placing reliance on those report after hearing only District Government Counsel impugned order has been passed is a cryptic manner and thus the impugned exercise cannot be said to be a valid exercise in the eyes of law: On these ground submission is that impugned order need to be quashed.;