Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
(2.) Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed Appeal No. 452/30 by order dated 28 July 1995 on the basis of a compromise allegedly entered into between the parties. The third respondent, one of the parties to the appeal, filed an application on 1 September 2015 for recall of the order dated 28 July 1995 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. The petitioners opposed the application by filing objections alleging that the restoration application is barred by limitation. On the same date on which objections were filed by the petitioners to restoration application, they filed a separate application praying that their plea regarding maintainability of the restoration application as well as their objections against section 5 application be decided before taking up the restoration application on merits. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by impugned order dated 17 August 2016 fixed 30 August 2016 as the date for disposal of section 5 application as well as for consideration of the plea of the petitioners regarding non-maintainability of the restoration application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation contending that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had adopted an illegal procedure in posting section 5 application for being decided along with restoration application. It was contended that section 5 application is required to be decided before the restoration application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision by impugned order dated 29 September 2016. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Jais Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, 2014 (1) ADJ 248 in contending that the appellate authority had erred in posting both the applications for disposal on the same date. It is submitted that there has to be a time gap between the disposal of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the restoration application.;