IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 719 of 2005 (M/S) Ghamandi Singh, S/o Shri Bhismamber Singh R/o Village Balswagaaj, Pargana Bhagwanapur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. …….Petitioner. Versus Collector Haridwar/District Up-Sanchalak Consolidation District Haridwar and another ……..Respondents. Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent. Date:- December 19, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. Admit the writ petition. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.4.2005 and order dated 10.5.2005 passed by the respondent no. 1 in revision no. 46 of 2004 (Gram Sabha Versus Ghamandi & others). According to the petitioner, notice in Form 49-A of the Z.A. and L.R. act was issued by the Tehsildar, Roorkee for eviction of the land mentioned in the said Form 49-A. After hearing the parties the notice was discharged by the Tehsildar, vide order-dated 26.12.2003, and the proceeding under Section 122 B had been dropped. Aggrieved by the order-dated 26.12.2003, Gram Sabha has preferred revision no. 46 of 2004 before the Collector, Haridwar. The Collector, Haridwar has allowed the revision ex parte after hearing the Gram Sabha, vide order- dated 21.4.2005. On that day the petitioner was not present before the Court. When the order dated 21.4.2005 came in the knowledge of the petitioner he field restoration application before the learned Collector, Haridwar (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) wherein it is stated that on the date which was fixed for argument, he could not attend the court due to the death of some relative. On 10.5.2005 the restoration application filed by the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had engaged an advocate and the advocate could have appeared on the date of the argument of the case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. It is well settled that the parties cannot suffer due to the negligence on the part of the advocate engaged by him. The learned Collector has not decided the restoration application on merit and no finding had been given by the learned Collector whether the ground taken in the restoration application was sufficient or not to recall the earlier ex parte order passed against the petitioner. In the interest of justice, it is necessary to give the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to plead his case before the learned Collector, since the order passed by the Trial Court was in favour of the petitioner. The order dated 10.5.2005 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) whereby the restoration application was rejected and the order dated 21.4.2005 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) whereby the revision was allowed ex parte, are liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Both the orders dated 10.5.2005 and 21.4.2005 are set aside. The learned Collector shall decide the revision filed by the Gram Sabha after hearing the petitioner as well as the Gram Sabha as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Collector, Haridwar on 15th January 2009 and shall also produce the certified copy of the order passed by this Court. Interim Order dated 13.7.2005 is vacated. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B. S. Verma, J.) Dated: 19.12.2008 RMY