S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.11.2000 by which revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel who appears for the private respondents.
(3.) Dispute is in respect to plot No. 63 which is said to have been recorded in the name of petitioner. Claim of the petitioner is that without any notice and opportunity to him behind his back, in an ex-parte move from the side of the respondent the Consolidation Officer by order dated 14.11.1996 directed the plot to be valued although the plot in question is in the shape of brick kiln as is also clear from CH Form 2-A where the land is shown to be Parti Gaddha and brick kiln. Submission is that appellate authority has also mentioned in its judgment about making of the spot inspection but in fact be has not made spot inspection and there is no inspection memo and wrong fact in this respect has been given in the judgment. Submission is that before the Revisional Court this was specific objection from the side of the petitioner that appellate authority is said to have made spot inspection without any notice to the petitioner but the Deputy Director of Consolidation without making any spot inspection himself has illegally dismissed revision in cursory manner.;