- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rishi Kant Rai for the respondent No. 2, who states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit. With the consent of the learned Coun sel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage.
(2.) UNDISPUTED facts are as under: In the basic year, khata in dispute was recorded in the name of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2, each having half share. An objection under section 9-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act), was filed by respondent No. 2 stating that the name of Teja has wrongly been recorded over the khata inasmuch as he was not the son of Thakuri. Consolida tion Officer vide order dated 25. 4. 1991 rejected the objection. Respondent No. 3 went up in appeal, which was also dismissed against which respondent No. 3 went up in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation finding that the parties were not given any proper opportunity to adduce evidence, vide order dated 20. 5. 1998 remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the same afresh after opportunity to the parties to produce evidence. The matter remained pending be fore the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and ultimately vide order dated 15. 1. 2005, the appeal was again dismissed with the finding that even though the proceedings have remained pending for six years, but the parties have failed to adduce any evi dence. Respondent No. 3 went up in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 27. 3. 2008 allowed the same. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even though there was absolutely no evidence on rec ord, yet the Deputy Director of Consolida tion has wrongly and illegally held that petitioner was not son of Thakuri.
(3.) IN reply, learned Counsel appear ing for the respondent has tried to justify the impugned order. It has been submitted that during the pendency of the proceed ings before the Settlement Officer, Consoli dation, only dates were being fixed in a mechanical manner and no opportunity was ever afforded to adduce any evidence. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation goes to show that there is absolutely no reference of any evidence, oral or docu mentary and abruptly a conclusion has been arrived at that petitioner was not son of Thakuri. The said finding is without ref erence to any evidence whatsoever.;