- (1.) Heard Mr. Mohan Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel as well as Mr. N.N. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3.
(2.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 31st of December, 2009, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich, whereby he has set aside the order dated 19th of February, 2007, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, inter alia on the ground that the order is without jurisdiction as against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was interlocutory in nature the revision was not maintainable. By means of order dated 19th of February, 2007, the Settlement Officer Consolidation by setting aside the order dated 10th of December, 1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer remanded the case to pass a fresh order on merit after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties.
(3.) Briefly, the case set up by the petitioners is that the land of Khata No. 90, situated at village Salarpur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bahraich was initially recorded in the names of Doobar, Mohd. Hussain and Habeeb sons of Subrati as well as Gulam Rasool alias Ghulam Mohammad and Rafiq, both sons of Rasool in basic year Khatauni. The total areas of the said Khata is 1.66 acre and 1/3rd part of the land was sold out by the aforesaid Khatedars in favour of Mustaq Ahmad, father of the petitioner No. 1 and 2 and Mohd. Koya opposite party No. 16 through registered sale deed dated 16th of October, 1980. On the basis of the said sale deed they entered into possession over their respective share of the land. It appears that their names were not mutated in the revenue record and it remained recorded in the names of sellers. During the course of consolidation proceedings they filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act before the Consolidation Officer. Their submission is that instead of deciding the said objection the Consolidation Officer passed the order on 10th of December, 1997 to devolve the property on the basis of right of succession, against which the purchasers filed an appeal with 8 years delay, on the ground that they were not the party in the proceeding and by the order impugned their rights have been affected. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by means of order dated 19th of February, 2007 allowed the application for condonation of delay and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh order by setting aside the order dated 10th of December, 1997. Being aggrieved with which Mr. Gulam Mohammad and others filed a revision stating the facts therein that against the order dated 10th of December, 1997 the appeal filed by Mohd. Koya was rejected by means of order dated 17th of January, 2006. He also challenged the said order in the revision. The revisional court also confirmed the order passed by the court of appeal, therefore, the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation have the effect of resjudicata between the parties and there was no question to recall the earlier order passed by the Consolidation Officer and set aside the same.;