Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 30.4.1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Allahabad.
(2.) The brief facts, for the purposes of determination of the present petition, as stated in the petition are that in proceeding under Section 20 of the Consolidation of Holding Act, the claim of the petitioner was accepted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 18.3,1972. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the contesting respondent filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation without impleading the petitioner as party to the aforesaid revision. On 9.4.1973 revision was allowed. The petitioner when came to know about this ex parte judgment, he filed restoration application for setting aside the order dated 9.4.1973. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on 31.12.1974 allowed the restoration application and set aside the order dated 9.4.1973. It is stated that when the revision was restored to its original number, the contesting respondents who were revisionists before the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not press the revision and on 20.1.1975, it was dismissed as not pressed. It is further stated that when the revision was dismissed as not pressed, the amaldaramad of the orders dated 31.12.1974 and 20.1.1975 was made in C.H. Forms 23, 43 and 45. It is staled that the petitioner came in possession in pursuance of the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and necessary amaldaramad was made. The allegations of the petitioner are that the contesting respondent filed an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation challenging the amaldaramad made in favour of the petitioner. An objection was filed to the aforesaid application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the application of the contesting respondent on 30.4.1986. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is based on suspicion. No enquiry was made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation from the staff as well as from other source regarding the allegations contained in the application filed by the respondents. He has further submitted that C.H. Form 23. Part 1 was filed along with necessary question answer to prove that on 20.1.1975 the revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as not pressed by the contesting respondents who were revisionists in that revision, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the orders dated 31.12.1974 and 20.1.1975 appears to be suspicious, is misconceived and unwarranted. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amaldaramad in missils band register and C.H. Form 23. Part 1 has been misinterpreted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to the effect that it is in different ink and in different hand writing and the suspicion drawn by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is incorrect and against the record. The Deputy Director of Consolidation should have made thorough enquiry regarding the alleged forgery and mere suspicion cannot be the basis for allowing the application filed by the respondent and for quashing the amaldaramad. His further submission is that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is self contradictory order. It is pointed out that at one place the Deputy Director of Consolidation has stated that the order dated 31.12.1974 is correct order, then he has no authority to say that amaldaramad should be made in accordance with the order dated 9.4.1973.;