Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) - Dukhan Lal had three sons Ram Pyare Lal, Mohan Lal and Indrajeet. Lallan Lal the petitioner is the son of Ram Pyare Lal, Mohan Lal is respondent No. 2 and Indrajeet is the original respondent No. 3. The land in dispute is situate in four villages. The name of Ram Pyare Lal alone was recorded over all the khatas except on Khata No. 36 of Village Jakhania. Two sets of objections were filed. One by Ram Pyare Lal claiming sole tenancy right in Khata No. 36 and other objection by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claiming co-tenancy rights in all the khatas. The Consolidation Officer dismissed both the objections and the basic near entry was thus maintained. An appeal was filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 25.1.1987 allowed the appeal of the respondents. An application dated 9.3.1987 for restoration is said to have been filed by Ram Pyare Lal father of the petitioner. A large number of applications were thereafter filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which except one are not very relevant for the purposes of this petition. On account of these applications, the restoration application could not be decided for a period of about two years. In 1989 during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had filed an application relevant to this petition alleging that the restoration application did not bear the signatures of Ram Pyare Lal. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation passed an order dated 9.8.1989 leaving it open to the respondents to raise this question at the time of hearing of the restoration application. Ultimately the restoration application was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 22.3.1990. When the restoration application was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation two revision were filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. One of the revision was against the order allowing the restoration application and the other revision was against the order dated 9.8.1999 by which the respondents have been allowed to raise the question at the time of hearing of the probation application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his impugned order dated 27.12.1985 dismissed the revision against the order allowing the respondents to raise the question at the time of hearing of restoration application but allowed the revision against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation allowing the restoration application. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri A.P. Singh Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Sahi Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(3.) The ground upon which the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed revision of the respondents is that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation did not decide the question whether the application for restoration was filed under the signature of Ram Pyare Lal. I have perused the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowing the restoration application. The finding is that there were two appeals before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation but summons were not issued in one of them. Even in the other appeal in which summons had been issued the address of witnesses before them the service is said to have been effected was not disclosed, it has also been found that there was no affidavit of process server. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not heard in the appeals. In so far as the question whether the restoration application was filed under the signature of Ram Pyare Lal is concerned the Deputy Director of Consolidation has himself dismissed the revision filed against the order by which the respondent were given leave to raise the objection at the time of hearing. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered whether this question was raised by the respondents at the time of hearing before the Settlement Officer. In case a point pressed which does not find mention in the order an affidavit of the lawyer who argued the case could be filed, which has not been done. Even in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition it has not been averred that the application filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 for getting the expert to examine the signatures of Ram Pyare Lal was pressed. In the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowing the restoration application there is no mention of the fact that any such contention was raised by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before him. It would be presumed that whatever contention was aside by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It has been considered by the Settlement Officer Consolidation More over the findings of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in caste that service upon Ram Pyare Lal was not proved. It is also to be noted that the application challenging the signatures of Ram Pyare Lal on the application for restoration was filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 after a long gap of 2 or three years and it is noted in the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were adopting dilatory tactics to delay the proceedings that view of these facts and circumstances the Deputy Director of Consolidation was erred in law in setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.12.1995 allowing the revision. Annexure 19 to the writ petition is set aside. The Settlement Officer Consolidation is directed to decide the appeal on merits if possible within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him by either of the parties.;