K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 27-1-1984 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, whereby a review or restoration application filed by the opposite party no. 2, Deo Nandan, in the present writ petition has been allowed.
(2.) The claims of the parties were decided by the revisional court through its order dated 3rd July, 1970. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application on 16-7-1981 for setting aside the order dated 3-7-1970 on the ground that the petitioner was not heard and the order in revision was obtained after practising fraud upon him as well as the court. It appears that the application filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation through his order dated 29-5-1982. The orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional court were set aside and the order passed by the Consolidation officer was confirmed. Against the order dated 29-5-1982 it appears that the opposite party no. 2 Deo Nandan applied for its setting aside through an application dated 17-4-1983 which has been allowed by the revisional court through its order dated 27-1-1984 contained in Annexure IX attached with the writ petition. Now aggrieved by the order of the revisional court dated 27-1-1984 the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the impugned order is bad in law because it has not decided any material controversy raised by the parties. It has also not decided the question of limitation involved in the case. It has also been emphasised that the impugned order is without jurisdiction because no review application lay under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.;