- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) IN view of the order proposed to be passed hereunder I do not propose to put the private respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to notice. Against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in chek allotment proceeding, the petitioner went up in revision. Deputy Director Consolidation entertained the revision and stayed the effect and operation of the Settlement Offi cer Consolidation dated 17. 12. 2007. Subse quently, on application filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the same has been vacated vide order dated 11. 3. 2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. It is contended that not only there was any justification to vacate the interim order in the facts and circumstances but the same has also been passed ex-parte without any notice or opportunity of hearing.
(3.) I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the peti tioner and perused the record. A perusal of the record indicates that the application for vacating the said order-was filed by the contesting respon dents on 11. 3. 2008 and on the same day the impugned order has been passed on the margin of the application which itself demonstrates that neither any notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the order. Further the dispute between the parties is with respect to allotment of chak and in this view of the matter, there appears to be no justification for implementing the order of the Settle ment Officer, Consolidation during the pendency of the revision and for this rea son also the stay order granted earlier was not liable to be vacated.;