A.K. Banerji, J. - (1.) By means of the aforesaid writ petition the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 25-2-1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Respondent No. 1) and also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents to decide the petitioner's restoration application dated 28-12-1985 on merits.
(2.) This is one of those unfortunate cases in which a simple matter like restoration application has been tossed like a shuttle cock from one Court to another for the last over 12 years. The pendency of this case for such long years has not only led to multiplicity of proceedings but further complications also. The relevant facts of the case are as follows :
(3.) One Gulzari Lal was the Bhumidhar of Khata No. 173 in village Bijauli pargana Bharthana district Etawah. After bis death his widow Smt. Ram Dulari became the owner of the disputed land and her name was mutated in the revenue record. Smt. Ram Dulari died on 20-5-1980 and after her death disputes arose at the stage of mutation. One Har Charan and Ram Sanehi claiming to be the sister's sons of the deceased Gulzari Lal sought mutation of their names over the plots in question whereas one Roop Kishore (respondent No. 4) got his name mutated by obtaining an order from the Supervisor Kanoongo by P.A. 11. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Collector and thereafter remained pending in Reference before the Board of Revenue. When the consolidation operations started in the village, the reference proceedings pending before the Board of Revenue abated under the provisions of Section 5(2)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Har Charan and Ram Sanehi died in the meantime and the petitioner claiming to be the beneficiary under a Will of Har Charan filed objections dated 9-10-1985 under Section 9(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer (Respondent No. 3). On 28-12-1985, which was the date fixed for considering the objections, it appears, both the parties were not present and the respondent No. 3 vide his order of the said date proceeded ex-parte and rejected the objections and ordered that the name of the party recorded in the basic year Khatauni shall continue. On the same day a restoration application was filed by the petitioner stating that he was present in Court and waiting for his case to be called but on account of great rush he was unable to hear his case being called out, hence could not be present. It was prayed that the order be recalled and the objection be restored to its original number and the evidence of the applicant may also be taken. It appears that no orders could be passed on the restoration application. According to the petitioner the officer superannuated subsequently and the Court of the Consolidation Officer remained vacant. Subsequently on 21-1-1986 the petitioner filed appeal No. 200 of 1986 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent No. 2) against the order dated 28-12-1985 of the Consolidation Officer, praying that the record be summoned from the office of the respondent No. 3 and the restoration application made by the petitioner be considered on merits. Subsequently an application was filed for expediting the hearing of the appeal and 11-6-1986 was fixed by the respondent No. 2 for hearing of the petitioner's appeal. At that stage the respondent No. 4 filed a revision No. 823 of 1986 under Section 48 of the Act before the respondent No I challenging the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was not maintainable. The petitioner also filed a revision No. 204 of 1986 to decide the petitioner's restoration application as the record of the case had been summoned by the respondent No. I while entertaining revision No. 823 of 1986 filed by the respondent No. 4. This revision No. 204 of 1986 was heard by the respondent No. 1 and vide the order dated 25-2-1986 the same was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition before this Court for the reliefs mentioned above, which was admitted by this Court on 15-7-1986. The respondent No. 4 has put in appearance and has filed counter affidavit to the writ petition. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the writ petition.;