- (1.) B. Dikshit, J. By this petition the petitioner has challenged order, dated 9-2-1995 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur whereby he reversed the order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
(2.) THE learned counsel for petitioner argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation and allowed the revision by reversing the finding to the effect that plot Nos. 295 and 296 are cultivable land. He has argued that it was obligatory for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to assign reason as to why he was reversing the finding recorded by Settlement Officer Consolidation, which has not been done. He has further argued that even the report of Commissioner, who was appointed during the hearing of appeal in this respect, has not been taken into consideration and, therefore, the order is bad for non-consideration of material on record. The learned counsel for caveator-respondent Bashishtha Narain Rai, Sachchidanand Rai and Vinod Shankar Rai, who filed the revision, argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has maintained the record as they were originally and that order could not be interfered. He further argued that so far the order of Settlement Officer ; Consolidation is concerned, that has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to respondents No. 2 to 4, who were litigating in respect of title to the said land with the Gaon Sabha and were entitled to be heard. The learned counsel for petitioner did not dispute this factual position that the order by Settlement Officer Consolidation was passed without affording by opportunity of hearing to respondents No. 2 to 4. So far the argument of counsel for petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed revision without considering the material on record is concerned, it is apparent from the judgment that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded his conclusion without assigning reason and without considering the material on record. For the said reason the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 9-2-1995 is liable to be quashed.
(3.) SO far the argument of counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 in respect of order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation is concerned that it was passed without hearing them, it also has force. The Settlement Officer,' Consolidation passed order without affording any opportunity to opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, whose litigation was going on with Gaon Sabha in respect of title. It was expected from Settlement Officer, Consolidation to provide an opportunity to them before passing the order, dated 29-6-1992. The respondents No. 2 to 4 were not heard by Settlement Officer, Consolidation which fact is not disputed by petitioner, and, therefore, the order, dated 29-6-1992 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. For the aforesaid reason the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 9-2-1995 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur (Annexure 7 to writ petition) and that of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, dated 29-6-1992 (Annexure-4 to writ petition) are quashed and Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ghazipur is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and decide it afresh, after hearing all the parties concerned, including Bashishtha Narain Rai, Sachchidanand Rai and Vinod Shanker Rai on all the question of fact and law raised by parties. Petition allowed. .;