Sunita Agarwal, J - (1.) The order dated 3.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in suo motu proceedings initiated on an inquiry report submitted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, is under challenge in the present petition. At the outset, the ground of challenge raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not heard before the order impugned was passed. He then submits that much after the consolidation operations were over, the instant proceedings had been initiated on the complaint of one person who had nothing to do with the disputed lands. The said complaint could not have been entertained by the Consolidation Authorities to initiate suo motu proceedings.
(2.) The submission is that the fact that the petitioner was not heard is sufficient to set aside the order impugned.
(3.) Entries in Aakar Patra 45 and other records of consolidation have been conveniently ignored by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. Dealing with the said submission, it would be relevant to note that the complaint was of forged entries made during the course of consolidation operations. On the said report, the Consolidation Commissioner had initiated an inquiry and deputed the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Azamgarh to conduct the inquiry. The inquiry report dated 26.10.2012 was received wherein it was reported that many of the plots of public utility lands are now recorded in the name of private persons without their names being there in the previous records.;