Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2002 passed by Consolidation Officer rejecting the application filed by the Dukhai, predecessor in interest of the petitioners dated 2.9.2002 challenging the maintainability of the restoration application filed by the contesting respondents. The petitioners have also assailed the validity of the order dated 10.8.2016 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision.
(2.) In proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the Act, an order dated 19.6.1998 was passed by the Consolidation Officer allowing the objections filed by Dukhai. Respondents 3 to 9 filed an application on 4.5.2000 seeking setting aside of the order dated 19.6.1998. Dukhai filed objections against the said application on 2.9.2002 contending that the restoration application at the instance of the private respondents is not maintainable inasmuch as they have no right, title and interest over the land in dispute. It was further contended that the restoration application had been filed with gross delay and it deserves to be rejected as such. By an order dated 23.10.2002, the Consolidation Officer rejected the objection dated 2.9.2002 and fixed 11.11.2002 for arguments on the restoration application. The Consolidation Officer rejected the plea of the petitioners that the delay condonation application and the restoration application cannot be decided simultaneously. The Consolidation Officer has taken the view that while the two applications can be decided simultaneously but the restoration application cannot be allowed without the delay being condoned. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed a revision, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.8.2016.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has made two fold submissions:- (i) the view taken by the authorities that both the applications, namely, the delay condonation application and restoration application can be decided simultaneously, is not correct. In this regard he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Jais Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Jaunpur and another 2014(1) ADJ 248 ; and (ii) that objections filed by the petitioners dated 2.9.2002 also challenges the locus of the private respondents to maintain a restoration application and consequently the objection could not have been dismissed without going into the said plea.;