Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 31.1.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 1 whereby the revisions have been allowed and the delay in filing the objections has been condoned.
(2.) BRIEFLY , stated the facts, are that the village Sonari, district Siddharth Nagar was notified under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short the Act). In the basic year khatauni, the names of Gopal Krishna Bansikar, respondent No. 3, Anant Bansikar sons of Ram Narain and Sukhdeo Prasad son of Ram Dayal, respondent No. 2 over the disputed plots were recorded. The version of the Petitioner is that he was in possession over the disputed plots. He filed objection under Section 9A of the Act. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 28.1.1971 allowed the objection and passed an order to delete the names of the contesting respondents. This order, however, was not given effect to. The Petitioner is alleged to have filed an application under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules to give effect to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 28.1.1971. The Consolidation Officer allowed the application vide order dated 15.9.1994 directing to make the entries in accordance with the order passed by the then Consolidation Officer dated 28.1.1971.
(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 to 4 filed Appeal No. 1870 of 1998 -99 on 25.11.1998 against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 28.12.1971 along with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Another Appeal No. 1869 of 1998 -99 was filed against the order dated 15.9.1994 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Both these appeals were dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 31.12.1999. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed two separate revisions against the orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Petitioner filed an application on 27.12.2000 to decide the question of limitation first. Respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 31.1.2001 rejected the application of the Petitioner and directed that the revisions be heard on merits. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.;