Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Pratap Pal appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as stated that he does not intend to file counter affidavit and the writ petition be heard and finally decided without filing counter affidavit.
(2.) The present writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 2-12-1994 has accepted reference which was submitted by the learned Consolidation Officer. An application for recalling the said order was filed by the petitioner on 2-1-1995 praying that the aforesaid order is ex-parte and he has not been heard. That application was supported by an affidavit. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on 31-1-1995 recalled the order dated 2-12-1994 and restored the reference to its original number and further fixed a date for hearing on merits. Subsequently the reference was again dismissed on 25-2-1995 in default. An application was again filed by Bhaiya Ram praying that the orders dated 31-1-1995 and 25-2-1995 be recalled they having been passed without hearing him. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order has recalled the orders dated 31-1-1995 and 25-2-1995 and maintained the order dated 2-12-1994. Against the order dated 2-12-1994 the petitioner has filed an application for recalling the order on the ground that he has not been heard. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in the order impugned has stated that the application which has been filed for recall of the order dated 25-2-1995 by Bhaiya Ram does not contain his signature or the thumb impression nor any Counsel has identified him. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that the said application is not maintainable. In the aforesaid impugned order dated 11-9-2001 the Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that the order dated 2-12-1994 is maintained. It appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken too technical view of the matter. The petitioner has filed recall application and was pursuing it with that the order dated 2-12-1994 was ex-parte and he should be heard. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has himself recalled the order dated 2-12-1994 vide his order dated 31-1-1993. The Deputy Director of Consolidation out not to have recalled the order dated 31-1-1995 and 25-2-1995 only on technical ground that restoration filed by petitioner to recall the order dated 2-12-1994 was not properly signed and verified by the petitioner. In the impugned order dated 11-9-2001 the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not recorded- any finding that order dated 2-12-1994 was passed after hearing both the parties.
(3.) In view or me above, the order dated 11-9-2001 is quashed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the reference on merit and pass appropriate order expeditiously after hearing both the parties.;