B.N.Nigam, J. - (1.) Shatrohan Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated May 8, 1964 and prohibiting opposite party No. 2, the Consolidation Officer, Maharajganj, district Rae Bareli from proceeding with the remanded case.
(2.) In the petition I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) The petitioner states that all proceedings in connection with the consolidation of holdings in the village upto the allotment of chaks were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act prior to its amendment by U.P. Act 8 of 1963. Subsequently on June 26, 1963 opposite party No. 4 Thakurain Srimati Raj Kunwar filed an objection purporting to be under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. She also prayed for condonation of the delay. The application was rejected on January 11, 1964. Opposite party No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was also dismissed. Thereafter she preferred no second appeal but preferred a revision. The Deputy Director Consolidation without recording any evidence gave finding about the facts on no evidence and without condoning the delay in regard to the objection, appeal and revision allowed the same and remanded the case to the court of the consolidation officer for disposal.;