Shitla Pd. Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) Two revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the judgment and order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Revision No. 895/751 of 1998 was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Revision No. 893/748 of 1998 was filed by some other person. The aforesaid two revisions were going on before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It so happened that Revision No. 893/748 of 1998 was dismissed in default on 30-12-1999 and order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition at page 41 of the paper book. The petitioner has also quoted the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the second revision in paragraph 12 of the writ petition. From a perusal of the order dated 1-9-1999 as well as from the order dated 30-12-1999, true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, it is apparent that in the last portion of the order it is written that this order will govern Revision No. 895/751 of 1998 also. Application for recall was filed by Gaon Sabha in Revision No. 895/751 of 1998. Cause shown by the Gaon Sabha appears to be that 30-12-1999 was not the date fixed in revision filed by the Gaon Sabha and order passed in other revision could not govern the revision filed by the Gaon Sabha as both revisions were not consolidated, therefore, the order passed in Revision No. 893/748 of 1998 will not be effective in that Revision No. 895/751. Application for recall was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. From the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that both revisions were pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation but both revisions were never consolidated by any order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has been observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that file of Revision No. 895/751 of 1998 remains undated, therefore, cause shown by the Gaon Sabha was found to be sufficient. The petitioner has challenged that order by means of the present writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Sri G.N. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that as two revisions were filed against one and same order and they were going on together might not have been consolidated but on every dates it was taken and orders were passed, therefore, it shall be deemed that it was also taken on 30-12-1999 and when Revision No. 893/748 of 1998 was dismissed in default and Gaon Sabha was party in that case then that order was binding on the Gaon Sabha and the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation became final and the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation cannot be seen again, therefore restoration application has wrongly been allowed. His submission is that from a perusal of the order-sheet dated 1-9-1999 it is apparent that Revision No. 895/751 of 1998 was not undated but both were listed on 2-12-1999 and on 2-12-1999 30-12-1999 was fixed in Revision No. 893/748 of 1998 and file of Revision No. 895/751 of 1998 was there and the Peshkar has written the order in Revision No. 893/748 of 1998. This is not the actual order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. His submission is that when the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed Revision No. 893/748 of 1998 in default the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation became final.;