KALPNA DEVI Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.4.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision no. 19 (Smt. Nema Singh Vs. Smt. Kalpana Devi and others). The said revision was filed against the order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Banda, by which the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has set aside his earlier order dated 22.8.2009 and fixed for argument on 11.12.2009.

(2.) WHILE assailing this order, Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the order dated 27.11.2009 was an interlocutory order, therefore, revision was not maintainable. He has further contended that no prejudice has been caused to the other side, as from the perusal of the order dated 22.8.2009, it transpires that the same is ex parte order against the petitioner.

(3.) THE facts, giving rise to this case, are that it appears the petitioner herein, on the basis of sale deed, executed by her mother, has filed an application before the Assistant Consolidation Officer for recording her name in the revenue record. The said application was decided in terms of the compromise on 13.7.2008. Against that, the respondent herein has filed appeal no. 165 of 2008 (Smt. Nema Singh Vs. Smt. Kalpana Singh and others). The said appeal was allowed ex parte in the absence of the petitioner on 20.8.2009. While allowing the appeal, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has recorded that while entering into the compromise, the procedure contained under Rule 25A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules') has not been followed. Further it do not contain the signatures of the required number of the members of consolidation committee. It is also recorded that the aforesaid order was passed without issuing any notice. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation came to the conclusion that since the compromise itself is not in accordance with the rules, therefore, the order of 13.7.2008 is unsustainable, consequently, he set aside the order dated 13.7.2008 and directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer to proceed in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order after taking evidence, etc. whatever is required for disposal of the application. Sri Mishra contended that the appellate order was an ex parte order, therefore, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has rightly recalled the said order and fixed the date for hearing and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in dismissing the revision.