RANJEET Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION UNNAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel representing the respondent no.4. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao whereby the restoration application preferred by the petitioners has been rejected stating the reason that the order dated 24.09.2016 has been passed on merits and accordingly the consolidation courts do not have any jurisdiction to entertain any revision petition.

(2.) The facts of the case,which can be gathered from the pleadings available on record, are that on an objection filed under Sec. 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, the consolidation officer vide his order dated 26.09.1998 ordered the land in question to be recorded in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as bhumidhar with non transferable rights. Against the said order dated 26.09.1998, the gaon sabha/State appears to have preferred appeal which was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2002 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Kanpur Camp Unnao. The petitioners thereafter preferred the revision petition against the said order dated 31.08.2002 which was dismissed in default vide order dated 25.08.2009 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao. Against the said order dated 25.08.2009, the petitioners filed restoration application on 21.10.2009 stating therein that the revision petition filed by them was dismissed on 25.08.2009 in their absence for the reason that they could not attend the said proceedings on account of illness. The said application dated 21.10.2009 was considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao, which was rejected by him vide order dated 24.09.2016 stating therein that application dated 21.10.2009 filed by the petitioners is, in fact a review petition and the consolidation courts do not have any jurisdiction to entertain any revision petition.

(3.) Thereafter the petitioners moved another application on 06.10.2016 seeking restoration of the case which has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 07.08.2018 observing therein that the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 31.08.2002 relates to the land belonging to gaon sabha in which no rights can accrue in favour of any tenure holder and further that order passed by the court below is based on merits.