- (1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastava, J. The instant writ petition has been listed for admission, since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, on the argument of the Counsels for the respective parties, the instant writ petition is heard and decided finally.
(2.) HEARD Sri H. M. B. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. K. Nagaich, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7-10-2004 passed by the Consolidation Officer and order dated 6-6-2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly. The dispute relates to Khata No. 704. The village was notified under Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), name of Naseer Khan son of Abdul Mazir Khan, Musalmat Kalsumat widow of Baseer Khan were sought to be recorded. Objections were filed under Section 9 of the Act, that their names be struck off from the revenue record and entries in favour of Sagari Khan, Saleem Khan, Faheem Khan and Naim Khan sons of Jameen Khan and three brothers of Allauddin should be recorded. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 13-5-1993 allowed objections. The objections filed by Nathu Khan and Kudresean was dismissed in default as they had not appeared before the Consolidation Officer. A restoration application was filed on 18-8-1993 for recalling the order of the Consolidation Officer. This application was allowed on 13-5-1995, which was decided subsequently by the Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties on 17-10-1997. Another restoration application was filed by respondent Mustaq Ali Khan on 10-4-2002 with a prayer for recalling the orders dated 27-3- 1990, 19-11-1992, 13-5-1993, 10-6-1997, 15-9-1997, 17-10-1997 and 28-4-2000 on the ground that he was not heard before passing the order. The application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7-10-2004. The petitioners were aggrieved by the said order and preferred a revision No. 190 of 2004 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the Consolidation Officer has illegally recalled as many as seven orders without considering entire facts and evidence on record. Besides, according to the petitioners, contesting respondents were afforded appropriate opportunity and if they chose not to appear and contest the matter, it cannot be reopened. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 6-6-2005 dismissed the revision, which is also impugned in the instant writ petition.
(3.) SUBMISSION on behalf of the petitioners is that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer are absolutely perverse and arbitrary and no reason has been assigned for recalling seven orders by means of a single order and, therefore, it has emphatically been argued that orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer are liable to be set aside. I have perused the orders impugned in the instant writ petition and gone through the record. It is admitted position that the orders, sought to be recalled at the instance of the contesting respondents were without any contest and it was passed in their absence. The application for recalling the orders was filed alongwith an application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has given specific reasons for recalling the ex parte order and also taken into consideration various decisions Ram Dhani v. D. D. C. and Ors. , 1995 R. D. page 34, Surendra Nath v. Commissioner Azamgarh Board of Revenue, 2003 R. D. page 141.;