The court addressed the objection regarding the filing of a counter affidavit and emphasized the importance of the notice in a writ petition, ultimately allowing the writ petition in part and setting aside the revisional order in part.

Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Brij Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Vishnu Bihari Tiwari, learned counsel for the caveators.

2. At the very outset, the objection of Shri Vishnu Bihari Tiwari is that although service upon the heirs of respondents 2 and 4 has been held to be sufficient, he may be granted time to obtain Vakalatnama and to file a counter affidavit on their behalf.

3. He additionally submits that the matter is of the year 2008 and he had filed a caveat. The Court had never granted any time to the caveators for filing a counter affidavit and, therefore, the matter cannot be heard and decided, at this stage.

4. This objection, in my considered opinion, is nothing but a ploy to keep the matter pending unnecessarily. There is no justification as to why, in case, the caveators wanted to contest the writ petition, they chose not to file any counter affidavit for eight long years, despite being aware of the pendency of the writ petition.

5. Notices, in a writ petition, are issued to a party, if, unrepresented and thereafter, the party put to notice has a right to contest the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit. The purpose of the notice is only to intimate a respondent about the institution of the case against him. The respondents were fully aware of the filing of the writ petition as they had lodged a caveat.

6. Under the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any substance in the objection raised that no counter affidavit is liable to be filed till such time the Court had specifically granted time to file counter affidavit. It is true that every respondent has a right to oppose a writ petition by filing a counter affidavit but this does not mean that in every case, a counter affidavit is to be filed only after time for the same is granted by the Court.

7. Besides, it appears that during the pendency of the petition, two of the respondents, namely, respondents 2 and 4 died. The applications filed to bring on record, their heirs were allowed and thereafter vide order dated 30.9.2016, notices were issued to the newly impleaded opposite parties. The order dated 30.9.2016 is quoted herein below:

"Notice be issued to the newly impleaded opposite parties, who may file counter affidavit to the main petition on the receipt of the notice.

List on 02.01.2017 before the regular Court."

8. The service of notices upon the newly added heirs of deceased-respondents 2-4 have been held to be sufficient by a separate order passed today. None has put in appearance on behalf of such newly added respondents, notices upon whom are deemed to be served.

9. Thus, the objection that no time was granted by the Court for filing counter affidavit is wholly incorrect and cannot be accepted.

10. Accordingly, the objection raised by Shri Vishnu Bihari Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents is turned down.

11. I have, therefore, proceeded to hear the writ petition and am deciding the same finally.

12. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the order dated 7.1.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This order is a common order passed in two revisions filed before the DDC challenging the same order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

13. The first revision was filed by the Gaon Sabha and second one was filed by the contesting respondents in this writ petition.

14. From perusal of the record and the submissions made, it transpires that the plot in issue in the writ petition is Plot No. 346/1, which was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha.

15. An objection was filed by the predecessor in interest of petitioner. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 1.4.1996, allowed the objection. Perusal of this order reveals that Plot No. 346/1M was included in the chak of the objector on the reasoning that he was in cultivatory possession of land situ