S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Agnihotri, learned Advocate in support of this petition as in the revision of list, no body appeared for the respondents. Writ Petition is of the year 1978 and thus, about 29 years has passed, Court is to decide the same as it is listed under the heading "Hearing".
(2.) Challenge is to the judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation by which revision filed by respondent has been allowed and thereafter, recall application filed by petitioner was dismissed.
(3.) Short ground as argued by learned Counsel is that the order of Deputy Director, Consolidation besides being illegal is in violation of principle of natural justice as no notice was served on the petitioner and he never engaged any Counsel and therefore, recall application filed by him has also been wrongly rejected without giving any finding on the ground so taken in the recall application. Submission is that till appellate stage, petitioner was not party and there was no grievance till that stage against him and therefore, effect on the petitioner's chak at revisional stage of the first time without any opportunity in the matter cannot be said to be justified. Submission is that petitioner moved application on 24.7.1978 stating that he never engaged Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned advocate and therefore, petitioner's signature/ thumb impression on the alleged vakalatnama be compared by taking specimen signature of the petitioner. But instead of passing any order on that application, recall application has been rejected in a very cursory, arbitrary and cryptic manner and by the impugned changes, petitioner's land over which petitioner's tube-well is situated adjoining to sehan etc. has been affected and therefore, petitioner is entitled to get opportunity of hearing.;