Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The S.D.M. who was summoned is present. He admits to the fact that the earlier order dated 04.04.2016 passed by his predecessor asking the petitioner herein to file objections to the review application filed by the D.D.C., Revenue was an error albeit a bona fide one and it is based on the said order that the subsequent proceedings took place and ultimately the order impugned dated 31.08.2009 was passed stating that the review application had already been decided and the order doing so having been upheld by the revisional Court, therefore, there was no question of again considering the same.
(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that an order was passed under Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 on merits by the S.D.M. on 18.02.2009 after due notice to the parties and a written statement was filed on behalf of the State/Gaon Sabha, however, surprisingly enough, an application for review/recall was filed by the D.D.C. Revenue on the ground that the order had been passed ex-parte. Without due application of mind the order passed on merits dated 18.02.2009 was recalled by the S.D.M. on 31.08.2009 i.e. on the very date the application for recall was filed without issuing any notice of hearing the affected party i.e. petitioner herein. He has also invited the attention of the Court to the said order and has contended that same does not disclose any reason.;