VIJENDRA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BAGHPAT AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2009-5-981
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 18,2009

VIJENDRA Appellant
VERSUS
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Baghpat And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amitabh Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri B.K. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.
(2.) The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 20.2.2008 has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing and the restoration application moved by the petitioner has also been illegally rejected by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Baghpat on 4.3.2009. He submitted that by a common order revision No. 74, Hukum Singh v. Shyam Singh has been decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Baghpat vide order dated 12.1.2007. In the said revision, petitioner was not the party. Subsequently, Hukum Singh moved an application for the recalling of the order, which has been allowed. He further submitted that on the same day recalling application as well as revision has been decided without giving opportunity of hearing and by the impugned order dated 20.2.2008 chak No. 827-A, which belonged to the petitioner has been affected. It appears that it is not in dispute that in revision No. 74, Hukum Singh v. Shyam Singh, petitioner was not the party in the aforesaid revision, therefore, there was no question of giving any opportunity of hearing. It is not the case of any of the party that while allowing the recalling application and deciding the revision No. 74, Hukum Singh v. Shyam Singh vide order dated 20.2.2008 opportunity has been given to the petitioner. Perusal of the order dated 20.2.2008 reveals that chak No. 827-A has been affected, which admittedly belonged to the petitioner. In the circumstances, before affecting the chak No. 827-A the opportunity should be given to the petitioner.
(3.) Sri B.K. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submitted that on the submission being made by learned Counsel for the petitioner matter may be disposed of.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.