- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. In this writ petition after hearing learned Counsel for the parties in part, I passed the following order on 5-5-2005. "the main dispute in between the par ties in this writ petition is in respect of plot No. 212/2. The said plot appears to be situated near the road hence having good market value. It further appears that before start of the consolidation the said plot belonged to respondent No. 2 However, at the A. C. O. /c. O. stage the said plot was given to Gaon Sabha as Bachat land. S. O. C. gave this Bachat land to the petitioner. It is evident from the Talika prepared in pursuance of the order of the S. O. C, which is at page 16 that an area of 17 acres of plot No. 212/2 was given to petitioner Deoki which in turn was taken from Bachat land. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that when respondent No. 2 did not challenge the order through which his plot No. 212/2 was included in Bachat land then he cannot ob ject to the readjustment of part of the said plot in such mariner that it is taken out of Bachat land and given to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 wants some time to verify as to whether any objection at any stage except through revision before D. D. C. was raised by the respondent No 2 against inclusion of prime plot No. 212/2 in Bachat land: Learned Counsel for petitioner has also pointed out towards judgment of the S. O. C. dated 1-9-1882 Annexure 6 in this regard par ticularly the portion on page 24 of the paper book. Accordingly list in the first week of August 2005 for further arguments which shall be confined to the above aspect only. "
(2.) THE order of S. O. C. , Mathura through which an area of 17 acres from plot No. 212/2 was given to the petitioner is dated 27-8 1981, copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. THE said judgment was passed in Ap peal No. 75 Sans; Ballabh Goswami v. Deoki &' Ore. Mahanta Lalita Saran, rsspondent No. 2 in this writ petition (the only contesting respondent) filed an application for recall of the said order of S. O. C. dated 27-8- 1981 on the ground that he was not heard before passing the said order. Said application was rejected on 1-9-1982. Respondent No. 2 also filed revision under Section 48 U. P. C. H. Act against judgment and order passed by the S. O. C. dated 27-8-1981. THE said revision (Revision No. 253/338) was allowed by D. D. C. Agra on 13- 12 1983. THE said order is under challenge in this writ petition. Copy of grounds of revision has been filed alongwith affidavit sworn on 19-12-2005. In the said grounds of revision absolutely no grievance was made against Bansi Ballabh Goswami on whose appeal S. O. C. had passed its judgment dated 27-8-1981. The entire grievance was against the petitioner in respect of plot No. 212/2 to the effect that the said plot was original holding of the revisionist hence it should not have been given to the petitioner. As stated in the order dated 5-5-2005 until filing revision before D. D. C. absolutely no grievance was made by the petitioner in respect of plot 212/2 area 17 acres which had been given to Gaon Sabha as Bachat land. The argument of learned Coun sel for the respondent No. 2 is that the reason for not raising any objection in that regard was that even though the aforesaid land of the petitioner which abutted the main road had been taken from him however in lieu thereof he had been given land in plot No. 215 which also abutted the main road. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has stated that as in respect of potentiality of the land and by virtue of nearness of the road petitioner did not suffer any loss hence he did not raise any objec tion. Before S. O. C. Bansi Ballabh Gos wami had raised objections in respect of Plot No. 215 which was his original holding and some part of the same had been given to the petitioner and some part to respondent No. 2. The S. O. C. ac cepted the case of Bansi Ballabh Gos wami and gave plot No. 215 to him and adjusted the petitioner on plot No. 212/2. Respondent No. 2 should have confined his revision in respect of that portion of plot No. 215 which had been taken from him and given to Bansi Bal labh Goswami by S. O. C. through its judgment dated 27-8-1981. Instead, the respondent No. 2 took a complete som ersault and asserted before the D. D. C. that as plot No. 215 which was adjacent to the road had been taken from him hence he must, be given back original plot No. 212/2 which was also adjacent to the road. This was not permissible, as it had become irrevocable, at the earlier stage. While filing revision against judg ment of S. O. C. dated 27-8-1981 respon dent No. 2 should have confined his case only to the extent to which order of S. O. C. was against him. He could not ask for reopening of the entire proceedings since A. C. O. stage as at that stage he had not raised any objection in respect of plot No. 212/2 area, 17 acres which was taken away from his original holdings.
(3.) THERE is one more aspect of the matter. After allotment of plot No. 212/2 area 17 acres to petitioner, petitioner ap plied before S. O. C. for permission to make construction of boundary wall over the said plot. S. O. C. granted the permis sion through his order dated 9-7-1982. THEREafter boundary wall and a room were constructed by the petitioner and thereafter it was gifted to Akhil Bhartiyasri Krishna Chetna Mandal Society (Paras 12 and 13 of the writ petition ). In view of the above. I find that the judgment and order passed by the D. D. C. is erroneous in law and accord ingly it is set aside. Judgment and order passed by S. O. C. is restored.;