High Courts(1999) 05 AHC CK 0154

Ram Chandra vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Azamgarh and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 18 May 1999

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.N.Agarwal, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 14410 of 1981

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 412 words

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidationrespondent No. 1 dated 291981 dismissing the restoration application filed by the petitioner.

2.

The fact is, in brief, are that in the basis year Khatauni the name of the petitioner was recorded in the consolidation records. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed objections claiming sirdari rights over the land in dispute. The petitioner claimed Bhumidhari rights on the basis of a saledeed alleged to have been executed on 1741966 by one Sibbe Hasan. The Consolidation Officer held that the petitioner did not acquires any sirdari right over the land in dispute vide order dated 7111973. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeal on 761974. The petitioner preferred a revision against this order. The revision was dismissed on 2941978.

3.

The petitioner filed an application to recall the said order on 951978 on the ground that the case was pending before Sri Shahi Depiity Director of Consolidation and later on it was transferred of which he had no knowledge when the case was taken up on 2941978 and decided ex pane. Respondent No. 1 has rejected the application taking the view that from the order sheet, it appears that when the case was transferred, a date was fixed and the petitioner had knowledge in regard to the date fixed in the case. The petitioner filed an affidavit alleging that he had no knowledge of the date fixed in the case. The restoration application was filed within ten days of the order passed by respondent No. 1. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the application on the ground that the ordersheet contains the signature of the petitioner. However, the signature was not verified.

4.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 291981 is hereby quashed. As the matter is quite old, the restoration application shall be treated as allowed on payment of Rs. 5,000 as cost payable to the contesting respondent Nos. 4 to 6 within six weeks from today. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall decide the revision within a period of two months from the date of production of k certified copy of this order.

5.

Let a certified copy of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within a week. Petition allowed.