- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Matter was taken up in the revision of the list. Heard Sri Tripathi. learned Counsel in support of this writ petition. No one appeared for the respondents.
(2.) THIS petition challenges the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which revision filed by the respondent was allowed. Proceedings are under section 20 of U. P. C. H. Act which is in respect to allotment of plots in the chak of parties. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer two appeals were filed. One was filed by the petitioner and other was by the respondent. Petitioner's appeal was dismissed. Appeal filed by the opposite party was allowed. Thereafter petitioner did not file any revision. Respondent side filed revision which was allowed which is being claimed to be ex-parte order. Petitioner side filed restoration application which has been dismissed. Thus to challenge both orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the restoration and allowing of the revision this petition has been filed. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was ex-parte as no notice was served on the petitioner side and therefore restoration was liable to be allowed. It was then submitted that petitioner is bona fide litigant although he was not given full relief but he was satisfied by his two chaks which was till the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation did not file any revision. But in the revision filed by the respondent-petitioner's chak has been made three in number on account of which petitioner has suffered serious injury as he is small tenure holder. Submission is that Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed revision on just mere asking of the respondent without considering petitioner's grievance.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid this Court is to decide the matter. There is no dispute about the fact that till the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation as submitted by the petitioner's Counsel there was only two chaks of the petitioner. By allowing revision number of chak of petitioner has been increased to three. Petitioner claimed to have no notice in the revision. When restoration was filed a finding has been recorded that notices were served on the petitioner's wife and in that view service has been accepted to be sufficient.;