A.N.Varma - (1.) AT the stage of admission the parties having exchanged affidavits this petition is being disposed of finally.
(2.) THE last order under challenge is that dated 21-8-87 passed by the Asstt. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner on 22-10-84 for setting aside the order dated 29-3-82 passed upon a revision filed by the contesting respondent allowing the revision and restoring the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 14-4-71. By the order dated 14-4-71 the Consolidation Officer had allotted chaks to the parties, it is stated, on their original holdings. THE petitioner has also challenged the other orders passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation as well as the original order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 14-4-71. It is, however, not necessary to examine the correctness of those orders as the matter is being remanded to the Assistant Director of Consolidation for the disposal of the petitioner's application dated 22-10-84 referred to above. Shortly stated, the relevant facts are that by the order dated 14-4-71 the Consolidation Officer allotted chaks to the petitioners and others. The petitioners were not satisfied with that allotment. They consequently filed an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer (C) by an order dated 30-7-71. The order passed by the Settlement Officer (C) disturbed the chaks of the contesting respondents and, therefore, they filed a revision which was decided ex-parte against them on 4-3-72. Against this the contesting respondents filed an application seeking the setting aside of the order dated 4-3-1972. This application was allowed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation on 22-3-82. The order dated 4-3-72 was recalled and the revision was restored to its original number. The revision was then allowed on merits on 29-3-82, and as a result, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 14-4-71 was restored. On 2-8-83 the village was denotified by issue of a notification under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Thereafter on 22-10-84 the petitioners filed an application for setting aside of the orders dated 22-3-82 and 29-3-82 on the ground that they had no notice of the same. This application has been rejected on 21-8-87 by the Assistant Director of Consolidation. It is this order which is the subject of challenge in this petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioners on 22-10-84 has not been disposed of by the Assistant Director of Consolidation legally and properly. The Asstt. Director of Consolidation has rejected the petitioners' application on the ground that the order dated 29-3-82 whereby the revision of the contesting respondents was allowed, was a just and proper order and, therefore, the delay in filing the application by the petitioner referred to above on 22-10-84 cannot be condoned.
(3.) THE Assistant Director of Consolidation clearly went wrong there. For the disposal of the application dated 22-10-84 he was called upon to consider two questions : first, whether the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay in filing the application dated 22-10-84 was satisfactory and entitled to be accepted ; two, whether there was sufficient cause for the absence of the petitioner on 22-3-82 and 29-3-82. He has considered neither of these two questions. He could not, in my opinion, dispose of the petitioner's application dated 22-10-84 without considering whether the petitioners had notice of the dates on which the case was heard and decided against them; THE impuged order is, therefore, liable to be quashed with the direction that the Assistant Director of Consolidation shall restore the petitioners' application dated 22-10-84 to its original number and thereupon dispose it of according to law. In the case of Shyam Narain Rai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia, 1981 RD 307, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that restoration application could be considered even if the same is filed after the denotification of the village under Section 52 provided there is satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application. With respect, I fully agree with the decision of the learned Single Judge supported as it is by several other decisions of this Court.;