ANITA SINGH Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Manish Dev Singh for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Yadav for the respondents.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 25.1.2014 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation , by which the revision was allowed and the orders of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 11.7.2006 and 2.5.2008, were set aside.

(3.) THE dispute in the writ petition relating to title has been raised u/s 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and it is alleged that the matter has been compromised between the parties before the Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 1.12.1983. The order of ACO was challenged by the revisionist Smt. Rajkumari and the order of ACO dated 1.12.1983 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the CO for trial and decision on merit. However, another set of appeal were filed by Lalit Shyam, Rajkumar, Madan Gopal and Others, against the order dated 1.12.1983 and the appeal has been allowed by the SOC by order dated 11.7.2006 and the case was also decided on merit. Thereafter, correction was made in the aforesaid order by SOC dated 2.5.2008. On coming to know about the aforesaid orders, Smt. Rajkumari, Smt. Prabhawati, Ram Kumar and Ashadevi filed a revision against the orders dated 11.7.2006 and 2.5.2008. During pendency of the revision, Smt. Prabhawati executed a sale deed dated 22.6.2013 in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime, final arguments in the revision were heard and judgment was reserved. However, the petitioner moved an application on 19.12.2013 for her impleadment in the revision, as such, she was again heard and thereafter, the judgment was passed on 25.1.2014, allowing the revision. The DDC held that the order of ACO dated 1.12.1983 has already been set aside by the order dated 12.7.1986, as such, the subsequent appeal filed against the order dated 1.12.1983 was not maintainable and it has been allowed without considering the fact that the impugned order has already been set aside and the matter was remanded to the Co for trial. In such circumstances, the subsequent orders passed by the SOC dated 11.7.2006 and 2.5.2008, were illegal and have been set aside. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.