(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 19-2-1997 by Deputy Director of Consolidation by which petitioner's chak No. 212 was disturbed and plot No. 163/3, the original holding of petitioner, was allotted to opposite party No. 2.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner urged that petitioner was neither a party in revision or was he impleaded, the impugned order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing. He further urged that his Original Holding Plot No. 163/3 was allotted to him upto the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation without any reason excluded original plot from Petitioner's chak and allotted to opposite party No. 2 at the revisional stage, hence impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(3.) IT transpires from the record that Petitioner was not a party in the revision. IT is averred in the writ petition that he was not impleaded by opposite party No. 2 by making any impleadment application. Vague denial has been made by the opposite parties in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit. Date of filing of impleadment application date of order on impleadment application date of Service of notice to Petitioner on impleadment application are not disclosed in the counter-affidavit. In view of the vague denial of the opposite parties of the averments made in paragraph 11 of writ petition and admission of the opposite party No. 2 that there is no signature of Petitioner or his Counsel on the order sheet on any date also makes it clear that Petitioner was not heard.