Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Shri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shyam Dhar Pandey, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.11.2000 passed in the proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) THE dispute was in respect of land recorded in basic consolidation year Khata No. 62 of Village Damodarpur Uparvar Tappa Karanda Tahsil and District Gazipur. In basic consolidation record, name of Vikrama now represented by the petitioner was recorded. The contesting respondent filed an objection under section 9 of the Act claiming co -tenancy of 1 1/2 share in the land in dispute. It is alleged that the matter was comprised between the parties and the Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 10.3.1973 decided the case in terms of the compromise. Thereafter the father of the appellant filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. It is alleged in appeal also a compromise was filed on 12.11.1973. Thereafter on the basis of compromise, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Assistant Consolidation officer by order dated 12.11.1973. Thereafter, a dispute between he parties again arose as the appeal was only in respect of Plot No. 216/2, area 1 -3 -4 Bigha and compromise was also in respect of disputed plot in the appeal but the entire order of Assistant Consolidation of Officer was set aside. Therefore, Vikrama filed an application for recall of the order dated 12.11.1973. Vikrama also filed an application for amending his memo of appeal. Although the recall application as well as amendment application of Vikrama were dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dated 18.5.1977. Revision filed by Vikrama was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 19.12.1979 and thereafter the matter was remanded to Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the amendment application (1st). After remand, Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dated 9.1.1981 rejected the amendment application as well as the recall application filed by Vikrama. However, the order dated 9.1.1981 was set aside by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 13.7.1982 and the matter has been remanded to Consolidation Officer for deciding the dispute between the parties after taking evidence. Thereafter, Smt. Lachiya filed an application on 17.12.1990 for review of the order dated 13.7.1982 which has been allowed. Mahindra also filed an application for review of the order on which the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the impugned order dated 9.11.2000 and the order dated 13.7.1982 was set aside and revision was also dismissed, hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has decided the revision on merit after hearing the parties by order dated 13.7.1982. Review application was filed by Musafir was not maintainable as under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, there is no provisions for review. As such the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.11.2000 was without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.;