- (1.) HEARD Sri P.N. Singh learned counsel holding brief of Sri J.P. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioners learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri A.P. Tiwari for respondent no. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this matter is being decided finally today itself.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur (annexure 18 to the writ petition) whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision of the respondent no. 4 and remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the restoration application and if it is allowed then all the three appeals be connected together and decided on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the impugned order to submit that the Consolidation Officer had passed an order dated 09.10.1992 and respondent no. 4 Sukhdeo feeling aggrieved had filed an Appeal no. 1283 which appeal was dismissed on 29.2.1993 where against the respondent no. 4 Sukhdeo did not proceed any further and the matter attained finality. The respondent no. 4 by concealing the said orders filed a time barred objection dated 25.09.1997 before the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 27.11.1997 allowed the objection and amended the chaks.
(3.) WHEN the petitioner came to know of the order dated 27.11.1997 she filed an appeal on 23.06.1998. The respondent no. 4 also filed an another appeal on 14.08.2002 against the earlier order dated 19.10.1992 although his earlier appeal against the order dated 19.10.1992 had been rejected. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by his judgment dated 7.5.2002 allowed the subsequent Appeal no. 2004 and 2005 of the petitioner and dismissed the Appeal No. 769/01-02 of respondent no. 4 Sukhdeo which appeal had been filed without disclosing that his earlier appeal had been dismissed.;