A.N.VARMA, J. - (1.) ONE Ramraji was owner of plot No. 932 situate in village Shivdaha, Pargana, tahsll and district Bahraich. She died issuless on 8.11.1982. The petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2 claimed rights to her property on the basis of Will said to have been executed by her in their favour. Proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act were thus initiated by the opposite party No. 2 which culminated in his favour. The petitioner thereafter filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which abated on village having been notified under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter the petitioner filed objections under Section 9A(2) of the Act which were barred by limitation by one and half years. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred praying therein for condonation of delay in filing the objections. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20th July, 2005 allowed the application under Section 5 on payment of Rs. 100 as costs and posted the matter for framing of issues. Being aggrieved, the opposite party No. 2 filed an appeal under Section 11 of the Act which was dismissed on 23.12.2005. Still not satisfied the opposite party No. 2 filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act. Opposite party No. 1 vide its judgment and order dated 24.6.2008 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 20.7.2005 as well as 23.12.2005. It is against the said order that the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri B.L. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.K. Singh learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party No. 1 committed manifest error of law in allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation. According to him, the Consolidation Officer in right perspective allowed the petitioner's application for condonation of delay and directed the matter to proceed on merits. Opposite party No. 1 while allowing the revision has shut out an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. According to him, since right, title or interest of the parties are to be determined, the objections ought not to have been negated on mere technicalities. It was further asserted that even if the name of opposite party No. 2 was mutated in respect of the land in question on the basis of Will in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the said proceedings were summary in nature and the same did not decide any right, title or interest of the any of the parties. It was further asserted that sufficient -cause having been explained for filing the objections beyond period prescribed, the opposite party No. 1 on correct appreciation ought to have dismissed the revision. In support of his case, he placed reliance upon Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (89) RD 607 : and Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu v. Gobardhan Sao 2002 (93) RD 556.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 in opposition submitted that there is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in the petition. According to him, the matter having been settled in 1984 there was no occasion for the Consolidation Officer to reopen the same for decision afresh. He further argued that since there was valid deed by which the property has been bequeathed to opposite party No. 2, therefore, title in respect of the property stood settled and it was not justified for opposite party to reopen the dispute again.;