R.P.Misra, J. - (1.) Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the basis of compromise cannot be set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further contended that in view of the decision of this Court in Somdatta v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others (copy enclosed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition), the remedy of the Respondent No. 2 against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation was to file an application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and not by way of filing revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(2.) Sri. S.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 contended that the appropriate remedy for the Respondent No. 3 against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation was by way of revision which has been availed of by him and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is perfectly correct and legal.
(3.) Sri Rai next contended that as the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation was based on the compromise and the same has been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, matter has not as yet been decided on merits. This contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is factually incorrect. A bare perusal of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation makes it crystal clear that he has decided the matter on merits.;