Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ayub Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sabhapati Tiwari appearing for contesting respondent no. 2.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under; During consolidation operation, an objection under Section 9 A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the petitioner claiming mutation of his name on the basis of inheritance and correction of area with regard to plot in dispute. Another objection was filed by contesting respondent no. 2 for mutation of his name on the basis of a sale deed in his favour. The Consolidation Officer consolidated both the objections and vide order dated 17.7.2002 dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner for want of evidence whereas the objection filed by the contesting respondent no. 2 was allowed and his name was directed to be recorded over the land in dispute. The petitioner moved an application-dated 27.7.2002 to recall the order dated 17.7.2002 on the ground that same was passed ex parte without any notice or knowledge. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 4.1.2003 allowed the application and recalled the order dated 17.7.2002. The contesting respondent no. 2 challenged the said order in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 21.2.2005 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 4.1.2003 whereby the recall application of the petitioner was allowed.
(3.) It has been urged by the leaned counsel for the petitioner that the revision filed against an interlocutory order was not maintainable and the Deputy Director of Consolidation had committed a manifest error of law in allowing the same. It has further been urged that without there being any opportunity of adducing evidence, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had recorded a finding on the merit with regard to the claim of the petitioner.;