PHENKOO Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.7.2001 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation. The revision No. 27 under Sec. 48 was filed against the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 17.10.1996 passed in peal under Sec. 11. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide his order dated 17.10.1996 dismissed the appeal filed against the order dated 10.5.1994. Facts of the case reveals that the order was passed by Consolidation Officer on 29.4.1991 on the basis of compromise. The application for recall of the said order was filed by Satya Ram and others praying that the aforesaid order be recalled. That said application was filed on 16.9.1991. The Consolidation Officer submitted a report for taking action under Rule 109. An order was passed by Consolidation Officer on 10.5.194 under Rule 109 giving effect to the order dated 29.4.1991. That order was challenged in appeal and therefore in the revision. The revisional court has taken the view that when the application to recall the order dated 29.4.1991 is pending, there was no occasion for implementing the order which was sought to be recalled. The application dated 6.9.1991 was required to be decided.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application dated 6.9.1991 was decided by the order dated 10.5.1994, however, in the said order it is mentioned that the application dated 6.9.1991 is pending. The Dy. Director of Consolidation has also observed that since the restoration application is pending, both the parties will have opportunity to have their say before the Consolidation Officer.