Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 28-6-2001 and 29-4-1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 8-11-1985 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioner against the order dated 8-11-1985 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, has filed a time barred appeal on 19-6-1993 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation passed an order dated 17-1-1996 dismissing the said appeal as barred by time. However, while dismissing the appeal barred by time, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has observed that the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 8-11-1995 is in violation of the provisions of Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. Against the aforesaid order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation a revision was filed which was allowed by the impugned order dated 29-4-1997. The petitioner against the said order has filed a review application which too has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 26-6-2001. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken the view that when the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has dismissed the appeal as barred by time he has no jurisdiction to make observation on merit or directing for making a reference under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(3.) I have heard Counsel for the petitioner. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was not on merit of the case rather he has made observation for reference under Section 48(3) of the Act. From the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation it is clear that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation although dismissed the appeal as barred by time but he has made observation regarding the merit of the order dated 8-11-1985. When the appeal was barred by time the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to further embark with regard to the validity of the order. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision is perfectly justified when he has taken the view that the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation is bad since the appeal was being dismissed as barred by time.;