Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.R. Dubey Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.8.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which order he has recalled the earlier order dated 29.8.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 993 of 2004-2005 filed against the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 2.3.2001. The respondent No. 2 filed revision being Revision No. 1295/539. The said revision was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and after considering the arguments of both the parties dismissed the revision by order dated 28.8.2001. Respondent No. 2 thereafter filed an application praying for setting aside the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.8.2001. In the application itself the respondent has stated that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not decided the revision in accordance with law. He further 5 stated that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also not considered the several 5 submissions raised by the respondent No. 2. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 9.8.2005 has allowed the application and set aside the order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned judgment has observed that the respondent No. 2 could not get opportunity to place her various legal aspects of the case hence his application deserves to be allowed after giving benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to review the earlier order dated 28.8.2001 which was passed after hearing the parties. Sri A.R. Dubey appearing for the respondents contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not looked into the judgment of the Civil Court and has passed the impugned order. The judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was erroneous and has rightly been set aside.;