Sudhir Narain. J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 8th October 1972, whereby the Consolidation Officer set aside the ex parte order dated 15th June 1988 and the order dated 7th January 1994 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation seating aside the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 27th January 1993.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that in the basic year Khatauni name of Manna Lal, father of respondent no. 3 was recorded in class-9 over the disputed plots. THE petitioner filed an objection under section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') tot expunging the name of Munna Lal. On 15th June 1988 an ex parte order was passed expunging the name of Munna Lal, father of respondent no. 3 from the disputed plots. On 22nd May 1989 respondent no. 3 filed an application to set aside the order dated 15th June 1988 on the ground that Munna Lal had died and he was his heir and legal representative, but the Consolidation Officer neither issued nor he received any notice regarding the proceedings which were taken against him in pursuance of an objection filed by the petitioner in respect of the disputed plots. He was in possession over the disputed plots. He came to know of the ex parte order on 29th April 1989 when he received Khatauni from the Lekhpal. This application was dismissed in default on 9th April 1990 Respondent no. 3 again filed an application on 4th March 1992 to recall the order dated 15th June 1988 stating further that he was ill on the date fixed and could not appear. THE petitioner filed an objection against this application. THE Consolidation Officer by his order dated 8th October 1992 allowed the application filed by respondent no. 3 and recalled the order dated 15th June 1988. THE petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). THE Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 27-1-93 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer taking the view that the second application filed by respondent no. 3 was not maintainable. Respondent no. 3 filed revision against the said order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. THE revision has been allowed by respondent no. 1 by order dated 7th January 1994. He took the view that no appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under section 11 of the Act was maintainable against an order setting aside ex parte order. THE petitioner has now come up in writ petition against this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an appeal lies before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under section 11 of the Act against any order passed by the Consolidation Officer in the proceedings under section 9-A of the Act. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act does not contemplate that appeal lies against all the orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer. The word used in section 11 of the Act is 'an order' not 'any order'. In case an interlocutory order has been passed by the Consolidation Officer, no appeal shall be maintainable under section 11 of the Act against such an order. It is only when an order attaches a finality, an aggrieved person can file appeal against such an order before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under section 11 of (he Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the case Shyam Raj v. Jyotish Prasad, 1982 RD 25, wherein it has been held that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has the jurisdiction to look into the validity of the compromise filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. In this case an order was passed on the basis of a compromise. It was not a case where an appeal was filed against an interim order. In Mst, Isharaji v. Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, 1968 ALJ 205, it was held that where an objection was dismissed for default of appearance, an appeal was maintainable against such an order before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under section 11 of (he Act. In Sahab Singh v. Rameshwar, 1971 AWR 755, the Court held that an appeal was maintainable under section 11 of the Act before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) against an order dismissing an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in submitting objection under section 9-A of the Act. Similarly in Pheku v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Varanasi, 1981 ALJ 1233, it was held that appeal lies against an order dismissing an objection for default under section 9-A of the Act. In State of U. P. v. Smt. Vimla Sambharwar, 1983 ALJ 137, where; the Consolidation Officer had dismissed the application for restoration of objections filed under section 9-A (2) of the Act, it was held that the appeal lies under section II of the Act before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). These are the cases where the objections were disposed of in default or the restoration applications were dismissed with the result that no proceedings remained pending after disposal of the application. The order attached finality of the proceedings This position will not be applicable where an application for condonation of delay is allowed or an application to set aside ex parte order is passed. The proceedings before the Consolidation Officer shall revive after delay is condoned in filing objection or ex parte order is set aside.
(3.) IN Sita Ram Singh v. State of U. P., 1970 ALJ 1324, it was held that no appeal lies against the order of the Consolidation Officer condoning the delay in filing the objection. Similar view was expressed IN Oaon Sabha Rakshaha Ghazipur v. D.D.C., 1980 AWC 547 and Ramroop v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, 1991 RD 222. The ; reason of all these decisions are that in case an ex parte order is sell aside or delay is condoned in filing an objection, the case shall be decided on merits by the Consolidation Officer and the final decision of Consolidation Officer would be appealable under section 11 of the Act. Respondent no. 1 rightly held that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision, of the Consolidation Officer setting aside ex parte order was not appealable Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent no. I after having found that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer setting aside the ex parte older, it should have itself considered whether there was sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte order. The petitioner did not file any revision against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 8th October 1992. It Is only respondent no. 3 who had filed revision against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 7th January 1994 There was thus no occasion for respondent no. 1 to record any finding on the propriety of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 8th October 1992 on merits.;