Jiyawan vs Addl.District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar and others

Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Tripathi B.C. Bhai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.5.2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharath Nagar.

Brief facts of the case are that against the order of Settlement Officer, petitioner filed revision No. 1144. The said revision has been decided exparte vide order dated 17.6.2002. Since the order was passed exparte without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, petitioner moved recalling application, which has been allowed vide order dated 22.12.2003 and the date of hearing was fixed on 9.1.2004. Instead of deciding the revision on merit after hearing both the parties. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 31.5.2008 has cancelled the order dated 22.12.2003, by which he has allowed the recalling application and affirmed the order dated 17.6.2002.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is patently illegal. He submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have decided the revision on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned parties instead of setting aside the order dated 22.12.2003 and affirming the order dated 17.6.2002. He further submitted that once the recalling application has been allowed vide order dated 22.12.2003 and the earlier order dated 17.6.2002 has been recalled, there is no justification for affirming the order dated 17.6.2002.

I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner. After allowing the recalling application, Deputy Director of Consolidation should have decided the revision on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties dealing with the issue involved in the revision. There was no occasion to cancel the order dated 22.12.2003 and affirming the order dated 17.6.2002. This view of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is patently erroneous.

In the result, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 31.5.2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is set aside. He is directed to decide the revision on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned parties. Petitioner is directed to file the certified copy of the order before Deputy Director of Consolidation within a period of two weeks and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision on merit within another period of three months strictly in accordance to law.