Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Srivastava appearing for the respondent No. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that he does not propose to file counter affidavit and the writ petition be disposed of finally at this stage.
(2.) By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. A revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the respondent No. 2 challenging the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 17.3.2005. Objection under section 9-A (2) was filed by the respondent No. 2 praying that the name of the father of respondent be expunged. There were delay in filing the objection, an application was also filed praying for condonation of delay. The Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 24.5.1989 giving benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was observed by the Consolidation Officer that the respondent remained absent, ex parte proceedings be done against him. Subsequently, by the order dated 25.5.1993 the objection under section 9-A (2) was allowed. The application was filed by the petitioner praying for recall of both the orders which application was also rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 26.5.2003. Against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 25.5.1993 and 26.5.2003 an appeal was filed by the petitioners which appeal was allowed and the orders dated 24.5.1989, 25.5.1993 and 26.5.2003 were set aside and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to give opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and to decide the case on merit. Against the order dated 17.3.2005 of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation a revision was filed by the respondent No. 2 which revision has been allowed and the matter has again been remanded to the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been set aside. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also observed in the order that no reason has been given by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation as to why the order of the Consolidation Officer condoning the delay is erroneous.
(3.) I have considered the submission of Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.;