AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE contention raised is that the revision was entertained on behalf of a third person, that too even after a considerable period and without any plausible explanation. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the impugned order dated 30.11.2010 deserves to be set aside on the short ground alone. Having perused the impugned order the facts emerge are, that in an appeal filed by the Gaon Sabha an order was passed on 28.6.1994 setting aside the order passed in favour of the petitioner. This order was castigated by the petitioner and a restoration was filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. During the pendency of the restoration application a revision was also preferred under Section -48 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This revision came to be dismissed on 2nd September, 1994. The notification under Section 52 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 was published on 7.4.1995. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation oblivious of these facts proceeded to restore the appeal that had been dismissed on 28.6.1994 vide order dated 7.9.1998.
(3.) THE Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that the restoration itself had become infructuous and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had no authority to restore the matter as the revision filed against the original order had already been decided on 2.9.1994. This finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the opinion of the Court is in consonance with the doctrine of finality and the principles of merger.;