Shambhu Lal vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation Jaunpur And 2 Others

Case called out in the revised list. None has appeared on behalf of respondents.

Shri S.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of the notice sought to be served upon Shri Paras Nath Bind. The notice contains an endorsement made by his clerk that it was refused by Shri Paras Nath Bind. The same is taken on record.

It could however be relevant to note that the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and these affidavits are available on record.

Heard Shri S.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against an order dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) which is a corrected amendment chart. By it, the amendment chart appended to the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 10.09.2014 has been amended.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as many as three revisions were decided by a common order, namely, Revision No.1241/13-14, Munshi Lal Versus Bhaiya Lal, Revision No.1511/13-14, Bhaiya Lal Vs. Shambhu Lal and others and Revision No.1437/13-14, Shambhu Lal Vs. Gaon Sabha. The first two revisions were allowed while the third revision was dismissed.

It appears that thereafter on 22.09.2014, a restoration application was filed by the respondent, Bhaiya Lal. A perusal of this restoration application, certified copy whereof is available on record, reveals that by this application, the order dated 10.09.2014 in so far as it pertains to Revision No.1241/13-14, Munshi Lal Vs. Bhaiya Lal, was sought to be recalled.

Prima facie this restoration application is not maintainable. A respondent in a revision cannot be aggrieved by an order dismissing the revision.

However, this restoration is stated to be lying undecided, till date.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that subsequently an application was filed on 30.10.2014. In this application, it was stated that the applicant had been proposed first chak in Plot no.110 area 0.009 hectare and this area was proposed north of his house. The Lekhpal, contrary to the order was carving out this chak, south of his house and therefore Revision No.1511/13-14, was filed which was allowed. It was also alleged that the Lekhpal was of the opinion that the correction table appended to the order allowing the revision of the petitioner, Bhaiya Lal was not in consonance with the order. A prayer was therefore, made in the application that the correction table be corrected in consonance with the revisional order.

This application was endorsed to the Assistant Consolidation Officer.

It is submitted that the Assistant Consolidation Officer never took any action. The amendment was made by the Consolidator and the same was placed on the file on 06.12.2014.

The first contention therefore is that the authorities, who had been directed to examine the matter, has not passed any order thereon and that it is the Consolidator who had prepared the amended correction table. He was not authorized to do so. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has not even signed the correction proposed by the Consolidator.

The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in any case, any change in the amendment table could have been made only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No such opportunity was never afforded, nor copy of the application whereon, the said order has been passed, was served upon the petitioner.

The next submission made is that 30.10.2014 and 31.10.2014 were not dates fixed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The submission therefore is that the application as also the amendment made in the correction table are manipulated resorted to exparte.

In this context of the submissions made, Shri S.C. Tripathi has also invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. It has been averred therein that there was no need to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before preparing the corrected amendment chart.

Upon a consideration of the submissions made and upon a perusal of the record, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Any correction in the amendment chart, in my considered opinion, could have been made only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, who have affected by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 10.09.2014.

In view of the averments contained in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, it stands establish that the amendment chart was corrected without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order correcting the amendment chart is exparte and cannot be sustained on this ground alone.

Accordingly and in view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned correction table signed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 31.01.2014, is hereby set aside.