Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.C. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.C. Kishan Srivastava, who appears for the contesting respondent No. 3 and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, who represents the Gaon Sabha. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.6.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and 14.2.2014 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur on a restoration application filed by the respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE instant writ petition arises out of an objection under section 9B of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioner, which was registered as Case No. 70 and related to plot No. 1273 area 0.93 decimals. This objection was belated and since no counter -affidavit was filed in support of the delay condonation application, the Consolidation Officer proceeded to condone the delay and, thereafter, allowed the objection and directed that an area of 0.93 decimals of plot No. 1273, which was recorded as pasture land be reserved in favour of the petitioner, namely, Maharshi Dayanand Bal Mandir. This order was passed only on the ground that a nearby area of plot No. 1273 was already reserved in the name of the petitioner. The respondent No. 3, Pradhan of Village Manikalan, Pargana Anguli, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur filed an application for restoration on 28.4.2012 on the ground that the order dated 17.9.1996 was an ex -parte order. The petitioner filed this objection thereto and also prayed that the question of maintainability of the restoration application be decided first. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 14.2.2014 allowed the restoration application, which order has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur by the order dated 26.6.2014 passed in Revision No. 1253/13 -14. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Consolidation Officer allowed the restoration application although the original record was not before him. It is, therefore, submitted that in the absence of the original record, the Consolidation Officer was not competent to decide the restoration application and the order passed by him deserves to be set aside. The second ground urged is that the restoration application was filed through a private Counsel and there was no resolution of the Land Management Committee for filing the same. In view of the provisions contained in paragraphs 128 and 131 of the Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual, such a restoration application was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. It has lastly been submitted that the signature of D.G.C. (Revenue) as also that of the erstwhile Gram Pradhan was available on the order sheet of 17.9.1996 and, therefore, the order passed on that date was not ex -parte and could not be recalled.;