Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.A. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 3.
(2.) The facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under: The land in dispute belonged to one Sunder Singh. After his death, the name of his two sons, Ram Saran Singh and Sadhoo Saran Singh came to be recorded in records. Sadhoo Saran Singh died issueless and his share was also inherited by his brother Ram Saran Singh After the death of Ram Saran Singh, the name of the petitioner came to be recorded in the records. During consolidation operation, the respondent No. 3 moved an objection for recording her name as widow of deceased Sunder Singh. The Consolidation Officer vide ex-parte order dated 18.1.1987 allowed the same and directed the name of the respondent No. 3 to be recorded in place of the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 thereafter moved an application under Rule 109 for incorporating the order dated 1.5.1987 in the year 1994. The said application was allowed vide order dated 8.4.1994. When the petitioner came to know of the said order, he filed an appeal challenging the orders dated 8.4.1994 and 18.8.1987 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 27.6.2001 after condoning the delay allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and remanded the case back to be decided afresh after opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties. The respondent No. 3 filed a review application before the appellate authority which was dismissed on 21.9.2005. She went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 31st March, 2006. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision and set aside the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation only on the ground that the application filed by Ram Saran Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, to recall the order dated 21.5.1987 was dismissed in default and since no further proceedings were undertaking by him as such he had no interest in the land in dispute.
(3.) The view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to be absolutely erroneous. The Settlement Officer Consolidation while passing the order of remand has recorded a finding that there is serious dispute with regard to the fact as to whether the respondent No. 3 is wife of Sunder Singh or not. He had also rightly held that in the interest of justice dispute between the parties may be adjudicated on merits after proper opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties.;