- (1.) HEARD Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.S. Siddiquie, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.3. Assailing the impugned order dated 28.02.2013, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad in Restoration Application No.282 in re; Reference No.44; Sachchidanand vs. Ramanand and others pertaining to village -Bhatpuragopal, Pargana -Khandasa, Tehsil -Milkipur, District -Faizabad, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the village concerned was notified under Section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the application moved by the opposite parties no.3. He has further stated that in fact the order under challenge passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not an order of restoring the case; rather he, in the garb of exercising the jurisdiction of restoration, he has in fact exercised review jurisdiction which under the scheme of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is not vested with him.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, facts of the case are that on a reference made by the consolidation authorities under section 48, learned Deputy Director of Consolidations decided the reference case by means of an order dated 31.10.2009. It appears that opposite party no.3 moved an application for recall of the said order dated 31.10.2009 and restoration of the case by means of an application filed by him on 26.09.2011 i.e. after expiry of a period of about two years. Along with the said application dated 26.09.2011 opposite party no.3 also sought condonation of delay in moving an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the application dated 26.09.2011 opposite party no.3 stated that plot no.38 was the original holding of opposite party no.3 and the petitioner both. It was further stated by opposite party no.3 that in the said plot eastern portion of plot no.38 is saline and, therefore, earlier an objection was moved to exclude the said plot or the said portion of the plot from consolidation proceedings, however, the objection was rejected and accordingly plot no.38 was valued. It was further stated by opposite party no.3 in the said application that in plot no.38 valuation of 20.73 was to be given to both the parties which has been done by making Reference No.44 in which the order dated 31.10.2009 was passed. Opposite party no.3 also stated that on 23.09.2011, Lekhpal told opposite party no.3 that in plot no.38 opposite party no.3 is being given a Chak on eastern side whereas petitioner is being given a Chak on western side. On coming to know of all these developments, opposite party no.3 appears to have moved the application on 26.11.2011 along with application seeking condonation of delay before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the application moved by opposite party no.3 by means of the impugned order dated 28.02.2013. It is this order that the petitioner has assailed in the writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner apart from submitting that after notification under Section 52 of the Holdings of Act whereby the village concerned was denotified from consolidation operation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not have jurisdiction even to entertain the application moved by opposite party no.3 and that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has in fact exercised review jurisdiction and not that of restoration, it has also stated that opposite party no.3 had knowledge of the reference proceedings all along and it is only when the opposite party no.3 found that he is being given a Chak in plot No.38 on the eastern side that he moved the application on false ground.;