The court emphasized the necessity of fair representation and substantiated reasoning in administrative decisions, especially when property rights are at stake.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State and Shri U.S.Sahai learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.1.

2. Under challenge is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.5.1982 whereby the revision preferred by the private respondent was allowed as a consequence the order dated 14.11.1980 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer of Consolidation as well as the order dated 1.4.1981 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been rejected and the disputed property in question has been directed to be recorded exclusively in the name of Ram Samujh. Since the said revision was allowed ex parte, the petitioner on 26.5.1982 moved an application for recall which was opposed by the private respondent and the Deputy Director of Consolidation after its due consideration, by means of the order dated 14.10.1982 dismissed the recall application.

3. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, that the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the two orders which are 14.10.1982 whereby the recall was rejected as well as order dated 25.5.1982 whereby the revision of the private respondent was allowed. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in participating in the revision and as soon as the revision was decided on 25.5.1982, ex parte against the petitioner, the application for recall was moved immediately on 26.5.1982.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also filed his affidavit that on account of sudden illness of his counsel, he could not be present in the court at the time of hearing of the revision and in the aforesaid circumstances, the revision came to be allowed ex parte and in such circumstances, it is urged that the petitioner should not have been penalised for any inaction on the part of his counsel and thus for this reason, the revisional court has taken a pedantic view in rejecting the application for recall.

5. It is further urged that even otherwise, on the merits of the matter, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not sustainable inasmuch as clear findings were recorded by the Consolidation Officer as well as by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which have not been taken note and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has interfered with the orders setting aside the same and granting complete exclusive rights to respondent no.1 which on the face of the record, could not be sustained and in the aforesaid circumstances, where the petitioner has got a right on merits, at least an opportunity ought to have been granted to put up his case and any delay for inconvenience, could always be compensated in terms of cost but this aspect of the matter has not been considered resulting in sheer miscarriage of justice.

6. Shri U.S.Sahai, learned counsel for the private respondent submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken note of the conduct of the petitioner and it has been noticed that since the revision became due for hearing on merits w.e.f. 5.10.1981 till 25.5.1982, several dates were fixed but the petitioner did not cooperate. It is only once the matter was decided on merits that the petitioner moved the application for recall and that too for the purposes of delaying the matter. His