KRISHNA MURARI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Tiwari for respondent nos. 4 & 5. Respondents no. 6 to 18 are proforma respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
(2.) THE facts are that objection under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by respondents no. 4 and 5 was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide ex-parte order dated 5.7.1995 without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the basis of an alleged will said to have been executed in their favour. The said order was recalled on the application filed by the contesting respondent no. 6 and subsequently, a fresh order dated 24.3.2009 was passed in their favour which was again ex-parte without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioner went up in appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation instead of considering the appeal on merits dismissed the same on the ground that since the order of the Consolidation Officer is based on registered will hence the appeal was not maintainable. Merely because the Consolidation Officer had decided the case on the basis of will cannot constitute a ground to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. It was obligatory on the part of the Settlement Officer Consolidation to consider the appeal on the ground raised by the petitioners therein on its own merits and the appeal could not have been dismissed as not maintainable.
(3.) SRI Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 and 5 has no objection in case the impugned orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation are set aside and the matter is remanded back with the direction to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to consider and decide the appeal filed by the petitioners on merits.;