B.L.Yadav - (1.) IN proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act), objections were filed. IN the basic year the name of respondent no 3 was recorded in revenue records and the petitioner filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act for expansion of that entry as the petitioner has matured his title over the land in dispute.
(2.) THE aforesaid objection was contested by respondent no. 3, but it appears that a compromise was filed and on that basis the case was decided by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 22-1-87 (Annexure-3 to the petition). Against that order respondent no 3 filed an appeal which was allowed by order dated 5-6-92 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, and the compromise was set aside and basic year entry was maintained (vide Annexure-4 to the petition'. Against that order the petitioner preferred revision which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 10-8-92 (Anne- xure-6 to the petition), holding that the compromise has correctly been set aside and the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was correct. To quash these orders by issuing a writ of Certiorari, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and learned counsel for the parties have suggested that the petition may be decided on merit at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the petition on merits Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as the compromise was set aside by the impugned order of the Consolidation Officer dated 22- 1-87. hence the parties must have been directed to lead evidence and the matter ought to have been decided on merits. But that was not done by the Settlement Officer Consolidation while allowing the appeal and hence respondent nos. 1 and 2 committed error apparent on the face of record.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent no. 3, on the other hand, urged that even after setting aside the compromise by order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation the basic year entry has correctly been maintained and there was no justification to permit the parties to lead evidence or to decide the matter on merits. It is to be noticed that the provisions under the Act for filing objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Act is just after issuing extracts from the record and statement and publication of record as mentioned in Sections 4 and 8-A and the issue of notice for inciting objections under Section 9. These objections are filed and thereafter in case it is not decided by the Asstt. Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A (1) of the Act, the matter is referred for disposal by the Consolidation Officer under the provisions of Section 9-A (2) of Act. These matters are decided in view of Rule 26 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, (for short the Rules), after hearing the parties, framing issues on points in dispute and taking evidence, both oral and documentary. But in the present case, once the compromise was set aside, the Consolidation Officer must have been directed to hear parties and to frame issues on the points in dispute and permit the parties to lead evidence, both oral and documentary and thereafter matter must have been decided on merits. The provisions of Rule 26 (2), was mandatory in nature, were violated in the impugned orders. The Settlement Officer Consolidation was supposed to be conscious about the provisions of Rule 26 (2) of the Rules.;