Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava for answering respondents.
(2.) It appears that vide order dated 31.3.2004 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia in Revision No. 406/1198 under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act the order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ballia dated 9.8.1978 has been set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the issue between the parties on merit afresh. Since the aforesaid order was passed ex-parte, therefore, the petitioner being aggrieved has filed restoration application against the said order of Deputy Director of Consolidation but the aforesaid restoration application has been rejected by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.10.2009 holding that the order dated 31.3.2004 passed by his predecessor in interest was perfectly justified. As a consequence of the aforesaid order the matter stood remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for disposal on merit. But it appears that on an application moved by contesting respondent under Rule 109 U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, the entries made in favour of petitioner has been deleted and expunged and some adjustment was sought to be made by Consolidation Officer on 4.2.2008. In my opinion, the view taken by Consolidation authorities in this regard appears to be misconceived and illegal. Accordingly the order dated 4.2.2008 passed by Consolidation Officer is hereby quashed and it is left open for the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute, remanded to him, on merit after hearing the parties and by permitting them to adduce their evidences.
(3.) With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands dismissed. Petition Dismissed.;