TEJ SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 8th October 1972, whereby the Consolidation Officer set aside the ex parte order dated 15th June 1988 and the order dated 7th January 1994 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation seating aside the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 27th January 1993.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that in the basic year Khatauni name of Manna Lal, father of respondent no. 3 was recorded in class-9 over the disputed plots. THE petitioner filed an objection under section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') tot expunging the name of Munna Lal. On 15th June 1988 an ex parte order was passed expunging the name of Munna Lal, father of respondent no. 3 from the disputed plots. On 22nd May 1989 respondent no. 3 filed an application to set aside the order dated 15th June 1988 on the ground that Munna Lal had died and he was his heir and legal representative, but the Consolidation Officer neither issued nor he received any notice regarding the proceedings which were taken against him in pursuance of an objection filed by the petitioner in respect of the disputed plots. He was in possession over the disputed plots. He came to know of the ex parte order on 29th April 1989 when he received Khatauni from the Lekhpal. This application was dismissed in default on 9th April 1990 Respondent no. 3 again filed an application on 4th March 1992 to recall the order dated 15th June 1988 stating further that he was ill on the date fixed and could not appear. THE petitioner filed an objection against this application. THE Consolidation Officer by his order dated 8th October 1992 allowed the application filed by respondent no. 3 and recalled the order dated 15th June 1988. THE petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). THE Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 27-1-93 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer taking the view that the second application filed by respondent no. 3 was not maintainable. Respondent no. 3 filed revision against the said order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. THE revision has been allowed by respondent no. 1 by order dated 7th January 1994. He took the view that no appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under section 11 of the Act was maintainable against an order setting aside ex parte order. THE petitioner has now come up in writ petition against this order.

(3.) IN Sita Ram Singh v. State of U. P., 1970 ALJ 1324, it was held that no appeal lies against the order of the Consolidation Officer condoning the delay in filing the objection. Similar view was expressed IN Oaon Sabha Rakshaha Ghazipur v. D.D.C., 1980 AWC 547 and Ramroop v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, 1991 RD 222. The ; reason of all these decisions are that in case an ex parte order is sell aside or delay is condoned in filing an objection, the case shall be decided on merits by the Consolidation Officer and the final decision of Consolidation Officer would be appealable under section 11 of the Act. Respondent no. 1 rightly held that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision, of the Consolidation Officer setting aside ex parte order was not appealable