- (1.) Heard Sri K.C Pandey for the petitioners and Sri Jitendra Prasad for the contesting respondents.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.4.2015 by which the revision filed by the Ram Lolarakh and others, contesting respondents, against the orders of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 31.10.2009 and 11.10.2012, has been allowed, the orders have been set aside and the matter has remanded to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for deciding the appeal afresh on merit after hearing the parties.
(3.) There was a dispute between the parties regarding two sets of disputed plots. The case was tried by the Consolidation Officer. He by order dated 29.8.2002 partly allowed the objection of the petitioners in respect of the first set of disputed land while dismissed the objection in respect of second set of disputed land of plot nos.104 and 108. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents, both filed their separate appeals. It is stated that the appeals were listed on 5.9.2009 . On that day the petitioners were present but the contesting respondents did not appear. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, therefore, reserved the order after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and given liberty to the respondents to file their written arguments but the written arguments were not filed. Thereafter the appeals were decided on merit by the order dated 31.10.2009. Thereafter the contesting respondents filed an application for recall of the order dated 31.10.2009. In the recall application it was stated that on the date fixed in the appeal the pairokar of the contesting respondents fell ill and, therefore, he could not appear before the court and the order was passed without hearing the arguments of the counsel for the contesting respondents. The recall application was heard by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who by order dated 11.10.2012 held that as he had already decided the appeal on merit as such in view of Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Shivraji Vs. DDC and others, 1997 88 RevDec 562, he had no jurisdiction to review his order. On this ground he rejected the recall application. Thereafter the contesting respondents filed a revision against the aforesaid order and the revision was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 18.4.2015 found that on a perusal of the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 31.10.2009 showed that the appeal of the contesting respondents was dismissed in default. Therefore, it was not an order on merit. On the date fixed in the appeal, pairokar of the contesting respondents fell ill, which was proved from the medical certificate filed by him. Thus, this was sufficient ground for not appearing before the appellate authority on the date fixed in the appeal. In such circumstances, the recall application was liable to be allowed but it was wrongly rejected by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. On this finding the revision was allowed, orders dated 31.10.2009 and 11.10.2012 were set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for deciding the appeal on merits afresh. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.;