Chhote Lal vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Gaurav Sharma learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4.

The matter had been adjourned on two occasions to enable Sri Gaurav Sharma learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 to obtain his instructions. In view of the order passed by this Court on 30.3.2011 Sri Sharma has been able to obtain certified copies of the order sheet from the office of the Settlement Officer Consolidation indicating that the contesting Respondent was given an opportunity to adduce evidence at the stage of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The said opportunity was availed and certain evidence was filed. Relying on the same the Settlement Officer Consolidation passed orders in favour of the contesting Respondent.

The Petitioner assailed the said order and one of the grounds taken was that this additional evidence, the opportunity whereof was given to the contesting Respondent and was availed of, was not made known to the Petitioner who had no opportunity to rebut the said evidence which has been made the basis for passing the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. This ground was also taken as ground No. 11 in the memo of revision but the Deputy Director of Consolidation without entering into the aforesaid issue raised on behalf of the Petitioner has dismissed the same.

I have perused the certified copies that have been produced by Sri Gaurav Sharma and the same do not indicate that any opportunity was given to the Petitioner for rebutting the evidence which had been filed along with an application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 29.12.2009 on which date the judgment was reserved by him.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was not given "any opportunity in rebuttal. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that no counter-affidavit is required to be filed at this stage and the matter may be remanded back for the Consolidation Officer afresh. He contends that the matter may be remanded back before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

In the opinion of the Court this error has crept in on account of the additional evidence having been admitted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and therefore it will be appropriate that the matter is decided by the appellate authority in order to avoid any further inconvenience instead of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolation dated 19.1.2011 and the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.3.2010 are quashed.

The Petitioner shall be entitled to an opportunity to rebut the alleged evidence which is stated to have been furnished by the contesting Respondent and thereafter the Settlement Officer Consolidation shall proceeded to decide the appeal afresh as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from today. The parties shall not be granted unnecessary adjournments.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.