S.N.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) From the materials on record, it transpires that the land in dispute was recorded as Gaon Sabha property. It was never recorded in the name of petitioner. It further transpires that in the proceedings under Section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act, petitioner moved an application for impleadment on the ground that he is in actual possession of Plot No. 119 situated to the North of Basti-Mehdawal Road, though recorded as Gaon Sabha property, but it was wrongly allotted to Abdul Hakim. This application was rejected with the direction that in case petitioner is aggrieved, he may initiate regular proceedings and in the allotment proceedings, he cannot be impleaded as an Opp. Party. On revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order, notices were issued and records were called for by the order dated 5th August, 2004. On 13th October, 2004, the revision was dismissed in default. On an application to recall, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti directed petitioner to adduce evidence how he was affected and what injury was caused by the order under challenge. Petitioner failed to satisfy the Revisional Court about failure of justice and also failed to show cause how he was affected by the impugned order, application to recall the order was rejected.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date fixed, but the Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in law in not recalling the order and not restoring the case to be decided on merits.;