Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Manu Saxena, counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.7.2001 (Annexure-7) to the writ petition passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahar. The facts of the case as emerge from pleading of the writ petition are that petitioner claims to be owner of the chak No. 278 whereas respondent No. 3 is having chak No. 125. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which was registered as appeal No. 1876 of 1995. It appears that petitioner filed some application before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation praying that appeal of the petitioner is not maintainable and be dismissed. On the said application an order was passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation that appeal is not maintainable. Subsequently the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 i.e. appeal No. 1876 was decided along with other appeals of village. With regard to appeal No. 1876 it was stated that the said appeal having been held to be not maintainable by the order dated 1.7.1996, no orders are required. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation also noted in his order that a revision has been filed by Dharam Veer Singh before the Dy. Director of Consolidation against the order passed on the application of Rampal Singh. A revision No. 1719 of 1997 has been filed by Dharam Veer Singh, respondent No. 2 against the order dated 1.7.1996 passed on the application of Rampal Singh. In the revision again an application was given by Rampai Singh that the revision No. 1719 be heard alongwith other revision of the village on which an order was passed on 15.6.2001 by Deputy Director of Consolidation, that the revision will b. heard at the time of hearing of other chak revision of the village. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 30.7.2001 has quashed the order dated 1.7.1996 passed on the application of Rampal Singh and also the order dated 15.6.2001 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Against the aforesaid order dated 30.7.2001 present writ petition has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 was not maintainable before Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed error in setting aside the order dated 1.7.1996. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in pursuance of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation he is likely to be dispossessed. Hence the order be quashed. After having heard the counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, it is clear that the order dated 30.7.2001 has been passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation taking the view that two contrary orders were passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 1.7.1996. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held in the impugned order that appeal No. 1876 which was filed by the respondent No. 3 is still pending and on 1.7.1996, there is another order in the own handwriting of the concerned Officer Shri Rawat that file be summoned, notices be issued to persons mentioned in the order and case be listed on 8.7.2001. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also noted that the order dated 1.7.1996, on the application of the petitioner, that appeal is not maintainable, was kept on a different file under Section 42-A. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order has further stated that appeal No. 1876 filed by respondent No. 3 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation is still pending undecided. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has further held that the order dated 1.7.1996 passed on the application of the petitioner does not give reasons nor is a valid order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation have taken the view that order dated 1.7.19% passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation is liable to be quashed has also set aside the order dated 15.6.2001 passed in the revision for hearing of the revision along with other revision of Village.
(3.) I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Appeal No. 1876 being still pending before Settlement Officer of Consolidation the petitioner will have opportunity to have his say before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the order dated 30.7.2001 the case has not been remanded to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, from perusal of the order dated 30.7.2001 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is clear that Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken the view that appeal No. 1876 filed by respondent No. 3 is still pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The order dated 1.7.1996 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation on the application of Rampal Singh having been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, there is no impediment in deciding the appeal No. 1876 in accordance with law. The consequence of the order dated 30.7.2001 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the appeal No. 1876 is to be decided. The petitioner may raise all his grievances before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and no interference is required in this writ petition.;