- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri V. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh appearing for respondent No. 3, who is contesting respondent in bjoth the writ petitions.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 3 is only contesting party and other respondents being proforma respondents, the writ petition be decided without service to notice to other respondents. Both the writ petitions raise similar question of law and facts and are being decided finally by this common judgment by consent of the parties. These two writ petitions pray for quashing the order dated 20th September, 2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 as well as the order dated 16th November, 2004 passed by Consolidation Officer condoning the delay in objection filed by respondent No. 3. Writ Petition No. 58671 of 2007 is being treated as leading case.
(3.) BRIEF facts necessary for deciding the writ petitions are; respondent No. 3, Murlidhar, filed a belated objection under Section 9a (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 dated 23rd February, 2001 praying that by giving benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act the names of petitioners be expunged and names of contesting respondents be entered. Writ Petition No. 586? 1 of 2007 relates to Khata No. 293 and Writ Petition No. 8439 of 2008 relates to Khata No. 61. The Objection of respondent No. 3 was contested by the petitioners by filing objection objecting condonation of delay. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 16th No vember, 2004 condoned the delay in filing the objection. Against the order dated 16th November, 2004 condoning the delay, revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order took the view that order of Consolidation Officer condoning the delay is interlocutory in nature hence revision is not maintainable. The Deputy Director of Consolidation refused to interfere with the order of Consolidation Officer on the ground that order of Consolidation Officer is interlocutory in nature. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, challenging the order of Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation, contended that order of Consolidation Officer was not inter locutory in nature since it disposed of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which prayed for condonation of delay in filing dejection. He has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1972 R. D. 80, Mst. Kailashiv. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others.;