Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for respondents.
(2.) Against the judgment and order dated 10.12.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Varanasi in Appeal No. 233, petitioners filed a revision registering Revision No. 802 under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur i.e. respondent no. 1. The aforesaid revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 vide judgment and order dated 31.7.1997. Subsequently, respondent nos. 5 to 17 filed an application dated 25.9.1997 before respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 802 praying for recall of the order dated 31.7.1997 allegedly on the ground that the aforesaid order was ex-parte order and was passed without hearing the applicants i.e. the contesting respondents. Objections were filed by the petitioners stating that the respondents were present in the court, on 24.6.1997 on which date the respondent no. 1 had directed the parties to submit a written argument by 7.7.1997. It was also stated in the objections that the said respondents were also present in the court on 7.7.1997 when the case was fixed for orders on 31.7.1997. It was stated by the petitioners in their objections that the contesting respondents had signed the order-sheet on 7.7.1997. However, respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 11.8.2005 allowed the application dated 25.9.1997 and recalled his previous order dated 31.7.1997. The order dated 11.8.2005 passed by respondent no. 1 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) A perusal of the order dated 11.8.2005 passed by respondent no. 1 shows that respondent no. 1 has passed the aforesaid order merely on the basis of a recital in the judgment dated 31.7.1997 to the effect that respondents have not presented their side of the case and therefore the case proceeded ex-parte against them. Consequently, respondent no. 1 recorded a finding that the contesting respondents were not given an opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated 31.7.1997. The aforesaid reasoning given by respondent no. 1 in his impugned order dated 11.8.2005 is fallacious in as much as merely because the contesting respondents had not presented their side of the case and had not argued before the revisional court does not necessarily imply that they were not given any opportunity of hearing. While passing the order dated 11.8.2005, respondent no. 1 has not adverted to and considered the allegation made by the petitioners in their objections that the contesting respondents were present in the court on 7.7.1997 and had signed the order-sheet. In case, the contesting respondents were present in the court and had signed the order-sheet in the case on different dates, the contesting respondents had sufficient opportunity of hearing. The aforesaid clearly shows that the order dated 11.8.2005 has been passed by respondent no. 1 without applying his mind to the facts. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 11.8.2005 is hereby set-aside.;