Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.C. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petition arises out of an objection under section 9 -A(2) and pertains to plot Nos. 308 and 429, which were recorded in the name of Smt. Rupau in the basic year record. It appears that on an objection filed by the petitioner claiming on the basis of an alleged gift deed dated 20.2.1969 his name was mutated in place of Smt. Rupau. Aggrieved Smt. Rupau preferred Appeal No. 723/733 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation along with an application for condonation of delay. The appeal was dismissed on 30.7.1991 on the ground of latches. Consequential revision filed by the Smt. Rupau was disposed of on 25.5.1993 in terms of a compromise dated 27.4.1993. By the compromise order, the name of Smt. Rupau appears to have been ordered to continue in the revenue record.
(2.) IT appears that Smt. Rupau died on 31.3.1998 leaving behind the contesting respondent, who is her sole legal representative. It is further the case of the contesting respondent that on 16.4.2006 she was informed that the compromise order dated 25.5.1993 have been set aside and the name of the petitioner has been ordered to be mutated. It is alleged that on 24.6.1998 an application was filed to recall the compromise order dated 25.5.1993. This application was filed by the petitioner without impleading Smt. Rupau or her heir and this application was allowed ex -parte and the compromise order dated 25.5.1993 was recalled on 31.12.2001. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2001, the contesting respondent filed Writ Petition No. 24897 of 2006. This writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner therein to file an application to recall the order dated 31.12.2001. It was further provided that if such application was filed within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, the same be heard in accordance with law within three months from the date of presentation of the application itself. It further appears that there was some typographical error in the order passed by the High Court, which required correction. The correction sought for was ultimately made on 22.5.2006 and thereafter the recall application was preferred on the very next day. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on 16.1.2008 rejected the application on the ground that the application had not been filed within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.
(3.) THE contesting respondent thereafter filed a Writ Petition No. 6895 of 2008. This Court by its order dated 14.11.2008 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order impugned dated 16.1.2008 imposing cost of Rs. 3,000/ - on the respondent No. 2 therein (petitioner in the instant writ petition). The D.D.C. was further directed to decide the recall application within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.;