VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT Nos. 4 to 8 filed objections under section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)' claim­ing that their names may be recorded over the plots in dispute on the basis of sale deed said to have been executed by Onkar Nath (husband of the petitioner). It was registered as Case No. 316 in the Court of Consolidation Officer, Tahsil Mau, District Chitrakoot. Objections were filed by Smt. Shanti Devi, the petitioner alleging that the sale-deed had not been executed by her husband Onkar Nath and that the alleged sale-deed was a forged document. The Consolidation Officer framed 9 issues. One of the issues was as to whether the sale-deed alleged to have been executed was a forged document, whether Onkar Nath who was an illiterate person, executed the sale-deed with the thumb impressions and not by putting his signatures. Evidence was led by the parties. The Consolidation Offi­cer by the judgment and order dated 3.12.2004 held that the objectors (respondent Nos. 4 to 8) had failed to es­tablish valid execution of the sale-deed in their favour and accordingly rejected their objections and directed that the entries as recorded in P.A. 11 in the name of Peti­tioner, Shanti Devi be maintained. It ap­pears that thereafter the respondents 4 to 8 filed an application dated 18.12.2004 for recall of the order dated 3.12.2004 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The said ap­plication was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 23.12.2004. The pe­titioner filed an appeal on the ground that the order passed by the Consolidation Offi­cer was without jurisdiction as he had no power to review his earlier order passed on merits; the order was ex parte against the petitioner as no opportunity of evidence and hearing was given to the petitioner on the recall application. On the above grounds the Settlement Officer, Consolida­tion by order dated 23.4.2005 decided the appeal and directed that after expunging the names of the petitioner the name of the objector Sanjay Kumar be recorded over the plot in dispute. The revision filed by the petitioner has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 1.5.2009 and the matter has been remanded to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for a fresh decision of the appeal in the light of the observations contained therein. Against the order of the remand writ petition was filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 being Writ Petition No. 48444 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.5.2009 with the direction to the Settle­ment Officer, Consolidation to decide the appeal uninfluenced by the observation and the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order. Pur­suant to the said order, the Settlement Offi­cer, Consolidation by order dated 5.12.2009 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and thereafter revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 19.8.2010. It is against these orders that the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigarn, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.N. Singh, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8. As all the parties are repre­sented, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this petition is being finally heard. Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioner has primarily raised two grounds. Firstly, when the Con­solidation Officer had decided the objec­tions on merits by the order dated 3.12.2004, there was no justification for re­viewing the said order. The argument is that the power of review cannot be derived inherently but may be specifically provided and conferred by the statute. In case any authority constituted under any Act is not provided with the power of review, he cannot exercise such power. According to him, the only remedy open to the respon­dents was to file an appeal against the or­der dated 3.12.2004.
(3.) SRI Nigam has further submitted that the Consolidation Officer did not af­ford any opportunity of hearing or of leading any evidence on the recall applica­tion, which was decided in less than two weeks and the matter was completely re­viewed and the objections of the respon­dent Nos. 4 to 8 which earlier stood dis­missed, were allowed by the subsequent order dated 23.12.2004. Thus, the Settle­ment Officer, Consolidation and the Dep­uty Director of Consolidation committed an error of law in not allowing the appeal or the revision and affirming the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 23.12.2004 which was without jurisdiction.;