Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri J.P. Singh for respondent no. 3. With their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit.
(2.) The objections filed by the petitioner under Section 9-B was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 28.04.1999. The third respondent challenging the said order, filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 30.08.1999. The petitioner filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 30.08.1999 on the ground that the said order was passed ex parte against the petitioner and without any notice to him. The Settlement Officer Consolidation accepted the said plea of the petitioner and allowed the recall application by order dated 10.01.2001. The petitioner thereafter filed an application questioning the maintainability of the appeal at the instance of the third respondent. The main objection of the petitioner in relation to the maintainability of the appeal was on the ground that against an order passed under Section 9-B, the appeal would lie under sub-section (3) of Section 9-B and not under Section 11 (1) of the Act. The objection filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 15.02.2016 holding that the objections should have been raised by the petitioner at the initial stage when the appeal was filed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.06.2016. The petitioner, thereafter filed a review application which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 21.10.2016. The petitioner is now before this Court questioning the validity of these orders. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed under Section 11(1) of the Act against the order passed under Section 9-B(1) is not maintainable. It is urged that Settlement Officer Consolidation wrongly did not enter into the said question by holding that the said plea should have been raised at the initial stage. It is submitted that since the appeal was earlier decided ex-parte and thus, the petitioner never had the opportunity to raise the question about maintainability of the appeal. He further urged that the land in dispute was initially allotted to the third respondent but the patta in his favour was subsequently cancelled and the said order has become final. Thus, the third respondent does not have any interest in the land and on this ground as well, the appeal at his instance is not maintainable.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that mentioning of a wrong provision of law will not divest the Settlement Officer Consolidation of the power conferred upon him by statutory provisions. It is urged that the appeal would lie before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, whether it is directed against the order passed under Section 9-A or under Section 9-B; as such the objection raised by the petitioner is of a technical nature.;