Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Anil Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava, Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 9-8-2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 27-2-2001 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 25-8-2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer. In an objection filed under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the identity of the petitioner was challenged before the Consolidation Officer on which the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 25-8-2000 permitting the objectors to cross-examine the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which has been rejected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 27-2-2001. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeal observing that the cross-examination will be concerned only on the identity of the petitioner and not on the merits of the case. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has held that no error has been committed by the Consolidation Officer in passing of the order. A revision has also been dismissed filed against the order dated 27-2-2001. Counsel for the petitioner has raised two submissions; firstly that the petitioner can be cross-examined only when the stage of evidence comes and his cross-examination should be permitted to be held after his examination-in-chief is done. The Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that Ram Nath and Shyam Nath parties to the case are already dead and their substitution has not yet been made.
(3.) Having heard Counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record of the case it is clear that the cross-examination which has been directed by the Consolidation Officer is confined with regard to question of identity of the petitioner. No error has been committed by the Consolidation Officer in directing the petitioner to present himself for cross-examination for establishing his identity. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly observed that the cross-examination is confined only with regard to the identity of the petitioner and not on the merit of the case. The petitioner can in no way be prejudiced by the cross-examination since with regard to the merits of the case as per observations of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation the cross-examination will not be made, at this stage I do not find any error in the orders passed by the consolidation authorities.;