RAM SURAT RAM(MAURYA), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P. K. Kesari for the petitioners.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.06.2011 allowing the revision and setting aside the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 06.01.2006 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.11.1998 and matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for trial on merit, arising out of title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The dispute before the consolidation authorities was in respect of land of basic consolidation year Khata 595 of village Jalhupur, pargana Jalhupur, district Varanasi. In CH Form -4, the dispute relating to share of the parties was noted. Siya Ram (respondent -3) filed an objection on 10.08.1986 claiming that the land in dispute was his exclusive property and his co -laterals have no share in it. Other co -sharers also filed objection claiming their share in it. The matter could not be compromised before Assistant Consolidation Officer between the parties therefore Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 16.11.1997 referred the dispute to Consolidation Officer for decision on merit. It is alleged that before Consolidation Officer the matter was compromised between the parties and a written compromise was filed on 21.11.1998 and the Consolidation Officer on its basis decided the case by order dated 21.11.1998.
(3.) SIYA Ram filed an appeal on 09.07.1999 along with delay condonation application against the order dated 21.11.1998. The appeal was dismissed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 06.01.2006 as time barred. Siya Ram, thereafter filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which has been allowed by impugned order dated 18.06.2011. Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order found that notice issued in the objection was been served personally on Siya Ram rather the service had been affected through affixation. In the appeal as well as in the affidavit filed along with delay condonation application, Siya Ram has denied service of notice as well as his appearance before Consolidation Officer and filing of the compromise. In such circumstances, Settlement Officer, Consolidation has committed illegality in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal as time barred. On this finding the revision was allowed and the orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation were set aside and matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for trial on merit. Hence this writ petition has been filed.;