B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order dated 18 -08 -1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation purporting to be on the restoration application filed by Jawahar, chalk Holder 304, Respondent No. 3. Earlier a number of revisions were filed including revision No. 243/19, filed by Parmoli, Respondent No. 2 and Jawahar, Respondent No. 3 against the Petitioners and others. Similarly revision No. 114/195 was filed by Phul Singh against Jawahar etc. and Revision No. 58/138 was filed by Ram Khilari against Jawahar, Respondent No. 3 in the present petition. Other revisions were also filed and they were consolidated and heard together by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the revision was substantially allowed by Order dated 18 -03 -1978. In the second part of the order an observation was made that after hearing the parties and after perusing relevant field book and village papers, the revisions were being disposed of. The restoration application was filed by Jawahar, Respondent No. 3 just by stating that on the notice his signature was not there and he was not heard. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not record a finding as to whether the notice was actually effected on him or not, or whether he made his signature thereon or not rather allowed the revision just by stating that in the interest of justice he considers it proper to hear the parties again. The said order was passed on 18 -08 -1979 and against this order the present petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri R.S. Dubey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. However, inspire of service no body appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
(3.) Sri Dubey urged that when the revision was decided by Order dated 18 -03 -1978 the parties were heard and an observation to that effect was also made in the order. He referred to Nahar Singh v/s. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Meerut, 1983 ALJ 391, State of Maharashtra v/s. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak : AIR 1982 SC 1249 and Union of India v/s. T.R. Verma : AIR 1957 SC 882. It was further urged that unless a finding was recorded that Respondent No. 3 Jawahar was not heard or that the notice was not served on him at all, or that he did not engage a counsel, the restoration application cannot be allowed. It has further been stated in Para 10 of the writ petition that Chak holder No. 304 was heard and that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 engaged one Sri Rama Kant, Advocate. In Para 12 of the petition it has been stated that Ram Hari was the process server who served the notice on Jawahar, Respondent No. 3 and has obtained his thumb impression and signature. In this view of the matter it was urged that there was no justification for recalling the Order dated 18 -03 -1978.;