S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1.12.2004 by which petitioner's application dated 5.1.87 raising the grievance against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 19.9.84 has been rejected.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Dwivedi, learned Advocate who has filed appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 3 have been heard at length. In view of the argument as has been advanced and in the light of controversy in the matter in issue Sri Dwivedi submits that filing a counter affidavit is not at all required as instructed by the respondents and therefore matter may be decided. As suggested by the learned Counsel for the parties it will be in the ends of justice and in the ends of both parties. Accordingly, this Court proposed to dispose of the matter finally keeping in mind the interest of both sides.
(3.) For disposal of the matter facts in brief will suffice. Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of the reconciliation as was arrived at under Rule 25-A of U.P.C.H. Rules passed order on 19.9.84 by which petitioner claims that his share/interest in the property in dispute has been varied to his determent. Petitioner's claim is that on coming to know about that order on 5.1.87 itself an application was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation making the complaint about forgery and illegal order as has been passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Petitioner claims that Deputy Director of Consolidation has summoned the record also. Admittedly for any reason which is not to be examined at the stage, disposal of the petitioner's application could not take place for about 17 years and now by the impugned order application has been rejected without any adjudication on the merits of the matter in issue i.e. order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer.;