K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 3-11-1988 the petitioner approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner before me is that on the application contained in Annexure VIII attached with the writ petition the impugned order dated 3-11-1988 has been passed without hearing the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case it is necessary to observe that petitioner should approach the revisional court and apprise it that the impugned order has been passed without hearing him. If the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is correct, I am sure that the revisional court shall recall its order dated 3-11-1988 and determine the claim of the petitioner strictly accordance with law.
(3.) It would also be necessary to observe that the apposite party no. 1, i.e. the District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of consolidation, banda, has no jurisdiction to transfer the revision petition to the other court this point should also specifically be dealt with by the apposite party no.1 in the light of the decided cases of this court, it has also been brought to my notice that at the present the District Magistrate or the district Dy. Director of Consolidation, Banda is out of station and the matter is being dealt with by the officer to whom the case has been transferred and 2-12-1988 is the date fixed in the case i think that the officer concerned shall not decides the case on that date and till the opposite party no. 1 decides the question whether transfer order passed by him is correct and in accordance with law after hearing the persons concerned.;