Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K. Rai and Sri S.K. Rai, learned Counsel for contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
(2.) Dispute relates to khata No. 1453 situate in village Sherpur Kalan, Pargana Jamaniya Tehsil Mohammadabad District Ghazipur which was recorded in the name of Kamla Prasad son of late Sankatha Rai. He executed a sale deed dated 20.4.1961 in favour of one Nand Gopal Rai son of Birbal Rai @ Bir Rai. The name of Nand Gopal Rai sop of Birbal Rai @ Bir Rai was mutated in the revenue records in pursuance to the order dated 16.12.1961 passed in Mutation Case No. 361. During consolidation proceeding chak No. 831 was carved out in the name of Nand Gopal Rai. A registered sale deed dated 9.10.2002/11.10.2002 was executed by Nand Gopal Rai in favour of the petitioner. Taking over possession of the land in dispute by the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed in her favour was restrained by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and thereafter, on making enquiry it transpired that vide order dated 13.4.1974/11.6.1974 passed by Consolidation Officer, entry of Nand Gopal Rai son of Birbal Rai @ Bir Rai was corrected and instead it was recorded as Nand Gopal son of Birodhi Rai. The petitioner also came to know of the order dated 24.2.2001 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer directing mutation of name of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in place of Nand Gopal son of Birodhi Rai as his legal heir. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed two appeals challenging the order dated 13.4.1974/11.6.1974 as well as 24.2.2001. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 5.1.2004 allowed both the appeals and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 went up in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.6.2005 allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and maintained the two earlier orders of the Consolidation Officer and Assistant Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation finding that the record of the case wherein the order 13.4.1974/11.6.1974 passed by Consolidation Officer correcting the entries as Nand Gopal son of Birodhi Rai was not available and further order dated 24.2.2001 passed Assistant Consolidation Officer was without analysing the evidence and was passed only on die basis of compromise, remanded the case back to be decided afresh after hearing the parties and analysing the evidence and the said order has wrongly been interfered with and set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has further been urged that vide order dated 24.5.2005 Deputy Director of Consolidation had directed that the revision would be decided on merits and had fixed 10.6.2005. The revision was heard only on the question of maintainability on 13.6.2005 and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on merits, order dated 18.6.2005 was passed allowing the revision on merits and thus it is in effect an ex-parte order. It has also been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the only question before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was with regard to legality or illegality of the remand order and if he found that the remand was not justified he ought to have remanded the case back to the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the case on merits and it was not open to him to consider the merit of the case himself.;