PARSHURAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR  OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai appearing for the respondent no.3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

(2.) The dispute relates to khata no. 245 situate in village Sikandarpur District Ballia. An objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by the respondents which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 21.3.2003. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ballia. Subsequently, on an application made by the petitioner the appeal was transferred to the court of Settlement Officer Consolidation, District Mau and came to be decided by order dated 1.2.2006. The respondents preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia against the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation District Mau. The petitioner raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia on the ground that he had no jurisdiction and the revision would lie only before Deputy Director of Consolidation Mau.

(3.) The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia vide order dated 10.3.2006 overruled the objection and held that revision was maintainable before him. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia has no jurisdiction to hear the revision against the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation Mau. Reliance in support of contention has been placed on a decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Darbari lal Vs. District Deputy Director of Consolidation Jalaun 1989 RD 304.