Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Vishal Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioner-Hari Ram aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.8.1975 and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 25.2.1975 has preferred this writ petition contending that the matter was decided ex parte by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the restoration application, which was filed on the very same day, was erroneously rejected.

3. The matter arose out of a reference having been made in relation to an incorrect entry. It was recorded by the Consolidation Officer that the entry which has been made in the record in relation to the said claim by the petitioner appears to be forged. It was indicated by the Consolidation Officer that the entry relating to plot No. 211, area 2.50 acres was illegal.

4. The said reference made by the Consolidation Officer was placed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and on notices having been issued the matter appears to have been taken up on 25.8.1975. The Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded that inspite of the name of the petitioner having been called out, none responded and inspite of opportunity having been given to adduce evidence, the matter was not attended too, hence in the circumstances, the name of the petitioner shall stand expunged. It was further directed that the land shall stand recorded as Navin Parti. It is these orders which are under challenge before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order dated 25.8.1975 accepting the reference was ex parte and the petitioner moved an application on the very same day for restoration of the proceedings and fresh hearing of the matter. The ground taken for restoration was that the petitioner arrived late as he was ailing for a fairly long time and he is unable to move and, therefore, the date be fixed in the month of September, 1975 for adducing evidence.

6. The said application was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the same day recording that this application has been moved after passing of the order.

7. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the order, which was recorded, on which reliance was being placed by the petitioner, has been found to be unsupported by any evidence, as neither any such revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation nor had the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed any order for recording the name of the petitioner over plot No. 211 area 2.50 acres in Khata No. 279. It is on the basis of the report submitted and the application moved by the Gram Pradhan that the aforesaid reference was prepared and forwarded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He, therefore, contends that even otherwise, the order does not suffer from any infirmity as nothing has been shown before this Court about any orders having been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in favour of the petitioner.

8. This writ petition was admitted by this Court presiding over by Hon’ble Justice N.D. Ojha on 18.12.1975 and an interim order was also passed staying the operation of the order in reference.

9. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha reiterating the facts stated in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

10. The issue before this Court is not the merits of the claim of the petitioner or the Gaon Sabha but the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.8.1975 rejecting the restoration application. The petitioner had moved the restoration application on the same day and merely because it was filed after the orders had been passed could not have been a ground for rejecting the same. The Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have taken a pragmatic view and should have disposed of the matter on merits after hearing the petitioner. There is no finding in the order of the Deputy Director