The Deputy Director of Consolidation must decide on merits when sufficient evidence is available, and parties must be afforded a fair hearing before any decision.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Pathak, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel and perused the record on board.

2. Vide order dated 15.09.2023 passed by this Court, notices upon the private respondents are deemed to be sufficient. However, no one has appeared on behalf of private respondents, therefore, the instant writ petition is being decided exparte against them.

3. Petitioner is aggrieved with the remand order dated 20.10.1996 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.672 (Chunnu v. Smt. Tirri and others) and Revision No.673 (Smt. Tirri v. Chunnu and others).

4. Facts culled out from the record are that during Provisional Consolidation Scheme, chak no.312 had been proposed to Lalu son of Maiku. Owing to death of recorded chak holder, following four set of objections have been filed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act.

(i) objection filed by Lundi and others being daughters of Lalu;

(ii) objection filed by the Chhotu being brother of Lalu;

(iii) objection filed by Smt. Tirri (one of the daughters of Lalu) on the basis of the will deed dated 17.9.1977 said to have been executed by Lalu and;

(iv) objection filed by the Chunnu, claiming himself as nephew, on the basis of will deed dated 25.9.1977 said to have been executed by Lalu.

5. Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 20.03.1980, has decided the matter in favour of Smt. Tirri daughter of Lalu acknowledging the will deed dated 17.9.1977 executed in her favour. Having been aggrieved, following two appeals were preferred:-

(i) Appeal No.1568 (Chunnu v. Tirri) and

(ii) Appeal No.1569 (Chhotu v. Tirri).

6. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 12.12.1980, has dismissed the appeal No.1568, however, allowed the appeal No.1569 acknowledging the right and title of Chhotu (present petitioner) being a real brother of recorded chak holder Lalu. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 12.12.1980 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, following two revisions were preferred:-

(i) Revision No.672 ( Chunnu v. Smt. Tirri and others) and

(ii) Revision No.673 ( Smt. Tirri v. Chunnu and others).

7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order impugned dated 20.10.1986, has allowed both the revisions and relegated the parties before the Consolidation Officer to get the matter decided afresh. Having been aggrieved with the remand order, instant writ petition has been preferred by Chhotu.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally decided the revision exparte sans opportunity of hearing to the petitioner inasmuch as during pendency of the revision, Smt. Tirri has filed transfer application and, owing to the pendency of the said transfer application, hearing of the revision was deferred. However, all of sudden same has been taken for hearing and decided by exparte order dated 20.10.1986 whereas transfer application itself was decided on 30.10.1986. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has remanded the matter on new fact with respect to the death of recorded tenure holder Lalu whereas none of the parties has raised any question qua date of death of Lalu. It is further submitted that, vide order impugned dated 20.10.1986, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally made an observation to implead the Gaon Sabha treating the recorded tenure holder Lalu died issue-less, whereas, his daughters were alive and contested the matter. It is further submitted that under Section 48(3) of U.P.C.H. Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has an ample power to decide the revision on merits of the case and appraise the evidence on record instead to remit the matter before the court subordinate. It is further submitted that there is no justification to compel the parties to lead evidence on new fact. It is further submitted that sufficient evidence is already available on record to decide the revision on merits. Therefore, instant writ petition may be al