D.K.JHA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition un­der Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated September 25, 1969, certi­fied copy of which is Annexure-7.
(2.) THE case set out in the petition is that the objections filed by Smt. Moihubu] Nisa were decided ex parte against her by the Con­solidation Officer vide his order dated June 30, 1966. Opposite party No. 4 Sm. Moihubul Nisa moved an application for restoration but the same was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated May 21, 1967. Certified copy of this is Annexure-5. The oppo­site party No. 4 thereafter preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation but the same was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide his orded dated November 6, 1967. Certified copy of this order is Annexure 6. Thereafter oppo­site party No. 4 preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was pleased to allow the revision accepting the case of the revisionist that there could be a plausible mistake in knowing about the dates fixed in the case as revisionist was a Pardanashin lady. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation also had a feeling that the consolidation proceedings on being finalised the revisionist will be left with no opportunity to seek her remedy against he lost rights. In this view of the matter the learned Deputy Direc­tor of Consolidation condoned the delay in filing the restoration application and was pleased to set aside the exparte order, passed by the Consolidation Officer. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation was further pleased to remand the case to the Consolidation Officer directing the parties to appear be­fore him on October 6, 1969. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order have come up before this Court by means of the present petition. The petition has been resisted on behalf of opposite party No. 4 Smt. Moihubul Nisa and a counter-affidavit has been filed by Nafis Ahmad on her behalf. In the counter-affidavit an effort has been made to justify the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consoli­dation on factual as well as legal grounds.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the course of argument the learned counsel for the petitioners reduced the cortroversy to a very narrow ambit by pointing out that already there has been a lapse of six years and if the matter is to be decided by the Consolidation Officer then the chain of litigation will further conti­nue for another couple of years. He, therefore, prayed that the De­puty Director of Consolidation be directed to dispose of the dispute between the parties himself rather than the dispute being initiated at the level of Consolidation Officer. The learned counsel for the opposite party agrees to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In this view of the matter it is not necessary for me to deal with the legal questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, assailing the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation so far as the orders of restoration passed by him are concerned. Both the parties have agreed that the ex parte order as set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation remain intact but, however, instead of the Consolidation Officer hearing the dispute afresh, to put an end to the litigation, the Deputy Director of Con­solidation be directed to decide the dispute relating to various Khatas. The prayer being reasonable is accepted.;