2/ 2 Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director, Shri Roop Chand filed writ petition before the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that he had neither been served with the numberice of revision number he was given opportunity of hearing by the Deputy Director.
In Paragraph 13, Shri Roop Chand averred that on 4th and 5th December, 1974, he was in police custody and was granted bail on 5th December, 1974.
No doubt, order dated 5th December, 1974, passed by the Deputy Director makes a mention of the presence of Shri Roop Chand and the alleged oral statement made by him that he would abide by the determination made by the Consolidation Officer, if the same is companysidered in the light of the assertion companytained in the rejoinder affidavit filed by him, which have number been companytroverted by the private respondents, it is extremely doubtful that Shri Roop Chand was present before the Deputy Director on 5th December, 1974.While adverting to the rejoinder affidavit, the learned Single Judge of the High Court observed that the denial is number specific and is vague and the Deputy Director has modified the chak of Shri Roop chand in accordance with the companycession given by him.
The same was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation Meerut vide his order dated 25th April, 1971.
By an order dated 12th March, 1971, the Consolidation Officer decided objections filed by different chak holders.
He, therefore, challenged the order of the Consolidation Officer by filing an appeal under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
In his order, the Deputy Director recorded that Shri Roop Chand had orally agreed to take the holding as per the determination made by the Consolidation Officer.
In the companynter affidavit filed by some of the respondents in the writ petition, it was averred that Shri Roop Chand had participated in the proceeding before the Deputy Director and agreed to take the holding in terms of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer.
In Paragraph 10 thereof, he stated that he had never agreed to accept the chak allotted to him by the Consolidation Officer, against whose order, appeal had been filed and allowed.
The appellate order became subject matter of challenge in three revisions, which were disposed of by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut for short, Deputy Director by a companymon order dated 5th December, 1974.
The learned Single Judge did refer to the companytents of rejoinder but observed that the same were number specific and vague.
3/ 3 From a perusal of the record, it is clear that numbernotice was served upon the appellant in either of the three revision petitions filed against order dated 25th April, 1971.
The Deputy Director changed the chak of the land of Shri Roop Chand with that of Karan Singh and others.
In the process, chak initially given to the appellants father, Shri Roop Chand, near his original plot was disturbed.
In support of this assertion, he placed on record a companyy of the extract received from R S. Masuri, which was marked as Annexure R 1.
Shri Roop Chand filed rejoinder affidavit.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
He also reiterated that he was number served with the numberice of the three revisions and did number participate in the proceeding before the Deputy Director.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition by simply relying upon the statement companytained in the order of the Deputy Director that Shri Roop Chand had agreed to accept the chak carved out at the stage of the Consolidation Officer.
