N.U. Beg, C.J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceeding under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. In Annexure B attached to the application it is stated that on the 6th of March, 1964, an ex -parte order was passed by the Consolidation Officer. Orally, however, learned Counsel for the Petitioners states before me that the date "6 -3 -1964" is a mistake for the 27th of January, 1964. On the 26th of September, 1964, a notification under Section 52 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act was published with the result that the consolidation operations were closed in the village in question and the area in which the said village was situate ceased to be under consolidation operations. On the 6th of February, 1965 after the aforementioned notification under Section 52 of the Act, an application for restoration was given by opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5. This application was rejected by the Assistant Consolidation Officer as well as by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground that no case or proceeding was pending before them on the date of the issue of the notification under Section 52(1) of the Act and hence any exercise of jurisdiction on their part in the matter was barred by Section 52(1) of the Act. The Dy. Director of Consolidation, however, set aside the ex parte order on the ground that the application for restoration was within limitation from the date of knowledge.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has argued before me that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to allow the revision and restore the case as no proceedings were pending before him on that date. The only reply of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties to the aforesaid argument before me was that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to the case and the application under Section 5 was rightly allowed. He is unable to give any reply to the argument that after the notification under Section 52(1) of the Act no suit or proceeding is pending in the court and it could, therefore, not be possible for the court to set aside the ex parte order dated the 27th of January, 1964. I am, therefore, of opinion that there is force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. I accordingly allow this writ petition and quash the order dated the 29th of March, 1966, passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. The Petitioners will be entitled to their costs from opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 only as they are the only parties that contested the writ petition.;