- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. This petition is listed under the heading 'hearing' and that relates to the year 1980.
(2.) EARLIER, a counter affidavit was filed by learned Advocate of this Court who, is now no more, upon which, notices were directed to be sent to the respondent and in view of office report dated 29. 1. 2008, notices meant for the respondents has been treated to have been served by the order of this Court dated 6. 2. 2008. No body has appeared for the respondent. Before noticing arguments, notice of facts in brief, will endure this Court to decide the writ petition in a comfortable manner. Basic year record, records the name of respondents and objection was filed by the petitioner through his mother who is said to be the next friend claiming rights on the ground that the land in dispute was acquired by the petitioner's grand father Rama Nand by means of registered sale deed dated 2. 1. 1937 and on the basis of sale deed, name was also recorded in 1346 Fasli. It is thereafter, name of school/respondent came to be recorded in the record, without any valid order and thus on start of consolidation, expunction of the name of respondent was sought. Petitioner in support of his case examined Gauri Shanker, Kali Charan and Raj Karan. Documentary evidence in the shape of registered sale deed, Khatauni extract of 1346 Fasli was filed. Respondent in support of his case examined Mahabali, Shobh Nath, Rama Shaker and Bansh Bahadur. Register of Lekhpal dated 24. 8. 1940 showing entry about an order of the Collector directing for the entry in the name of school was filed. Consolidation Officer, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced from both sides, allowed petitioner's objection and directed for expunction of the basic year entry. Appeal was filed by respondent which was allowed. Thereafter, on behalf of petitioner, revision is said to have been filed by one Bhola Nath Srivas-tava and Shivdhari Singh, Advocate. Although, in the revision notices were not issued, an application came to be filed on behalf of petitioner by Shivdhari Singh, Advocate only stating that revision be dismissed as not pressed. Acting upon that application, Deputy Director, Consolidation dismissed the revision as not pressed. Petitioner claims to have no knowledge of the order and on attaining majority as and when petitioner came to know about that order, a recall application was filed which was supported by an affidavit. The Deputy Director, Consolidation rejected petitioner's application. Thus, to challenge both orders of the Deputy Director, Consolidation i. e. dismissing the revision as not pressed and dismissing recall application, this petition is before this Court. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Shivdhari Singh, Advocate was never instructed for getting the revision dismissed as not pressed and there was no occasion for the same. It is pointed out that petitioner was minor, his mother happened to be pardanasheen lady and therefore, Sri Singh, having been influenced by respondents' side moved that application his own and got the revision dismissed as not pressed. Submission is that there was no occasion for the revisionist to get the revision dismissed as not pressed as judgment of the Consolidation Officer which happened to be in petitioner's favour contains very good findings on merits and there being every hope of success, getting the revision dismissed as not pressed was quite strange and something unusual. Submission is that there was affidavit from the side of petitioner disowning alleged action of Shivdhari Singh, Advocate to which there was no counter affidavit and therefore, Deputy Director, Consolidation in rejecting petitioner's application has committed manifest error and that has resulted into serious prejudice to petitioner's interest.
(3.) BESIDES aforesaid, submission is that on merits, petitioner has unanswerable case inasmuch as name of petitioner's grand father was recorded in 1346 Fasli, on the basis of registered sale deed dated 2. 1. 1937 and on record, there was no document to establish the acquisition of land in accordance with law or otherwise petitioner's grand father had given the land to the school and thus, judgment of appellate authority which was of reversal was to be set aside by the Deputy Director, Consolidation and therefore, there being no decision by the Deputy Director, Consolidation on merits, on the facts, petitioner is entitled for a direction from the Revisional Court to revive the revision for its decision oil merits in accordance with law after opportunity to both sides. In view of aforesaid submission, this Court has to deal both aspects.;