A.P.Misra - (1.) THE present petition is directed against order dated 24th January, 1980, and 21st August, 1976, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by virtue of which he rejected the restoration application of the petitioner and allowed the reference in revision.
(2.) THE petitioner's ease is, long after carvation of chak proceedings one Salfu moved an application for providing him a Nali through his chak on which the Assistant Consolidation Officer made a recommendation in favour of contesting respondent. THE petitioner filed an objection to it stating that there is already an existing Nali and there is no occasion for granting another Nali. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is alleged, without hearing the petitioner or his counsel accepted the reference by means of the impugned order dated 21st August, 1976. THEreafter, the petitioner being a minor, through his natural guardian, viz. mother, filed a restoration application before the said court for setting aside the ex-parte order and for giving an opportunity of being heard. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation, however, rejected the application by means of order dated 24th January, 1980. Aggrieved as against the said, the present petition has been filed for quashing both the impugned orders dated 24th January, 1980 and 21st August, 1976. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner being a minor and brother of Ram Adhar, Radhey and Bodhey and he not having been heard, the orders which pre-judicially affected him, are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that, in fact, no changes could have been brought about by the Consolidation authorities after the conclusion of the Consolidation proceedings and thus even on merits the court should not have interfered. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, strenuously urged that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order. The petitioner was represented through Ram Adhar, who acted as his guardian and next akin. He filed vakalatnama on his and on behalf of the minor petitioner and thus it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard.
(3.) I have perused the impugned order dated 24th January, 1980. A finding has been recorded that if any one of the brother was represented it was not necessary to hear other brothers in a joint holding inherited by them from their father and as such the order could not be said to be ex-parte order. The aforesaid finding cannot be sustained. After death of the father, each one of the sons have independent right to agitate before the authorities and to be given an opportunity of being heard. The finding to the contrary cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, urged that there is nothing wrong in the brother acting as a guardian of the petitioner (minor) and he having filed an objection on his behalf and on behalf of other brothers the order passed cannot be challenged.;