Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri H.O.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.K. Nigam & Sri V.S. Chauhan appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 8 and Sri Mahesh Kumar appearing for respondent nos. 9 to 12.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the purposes are that the petitioner, respondent no. 10 and certain other persons moved an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short ''the Act') for mutation of their name on the basis of registered sale deed executed by the daughters of deceased Asha Devi. The Assistant Consolidation Officer issue proclamation. When no objection was filed, the petitioner and the vendees filed a compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer which was duly witnessed by the Pradhan as Chairman of the Consolidation Committee. On the basis of the compromise the Assistant Consolidation Officer allowed the mutation application. In the same manner the mutation applications filed by the other vendees were also allowed. Aggrieved, respondent no.5 filed an appeal challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 15.3.2004 allowed the appeal on the ground that the orders passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer were ex-parte without any notice or opportunity of hearing to respondent no.5. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the petitioner along with opposite party 4th set filed eight revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.1.2006.
(3.) It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the Settlement Officer Consolidation found that the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was an ex-parte order he ought to have remanded the matter back to be considered afresh after opportunity of adducing evidence and hearing to all the parties. He however, wrongly proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.;