Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 22.9.2004 after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. Subsequently, an application was moved to recall the said order has been moved on behalf of respondent No. 2 on the ground that name of the Counsel for respondent No. 2 was not printed in the cause list as such he had no notice about the case being listed and the ex-parte order was passed. The application for recalling the order has been allowed by me today.
(2.) Heard Sri A.N. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.
(3.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.2.1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The facts of the case are that an objection under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 2.4.1985. Subsequently, a reference was prepared under section 48 (3) of the Act for giving effect to the said order of the Consolidation Officer. The reference was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 30.4.1985. While accepting the reference the Deputy Director of Consolidation made certain adjustments and the petitioner was allotted plot Nos. 445/.6 and 545/.14 out of the bachat land and equal valuation of the land from the chak of the petitioner was taken away. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed- restoration application on 7.5.1985 claiming that the order dated 30.4.1985 has been passed without any notice or any knowledge to him and behind his back. The petitioner filed objection to the said application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order allowed the said application and directed that the matter be decided afresh after hearing respondent No. 2.;