- (1.) PROCEEDINGS under Section 12 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (here­inafter to be referred as Act) were decided ex parte against the opposite parties No. 3 to 6 by the Consolidation Officer vide its judg­ment and order dated 23-11-1985. Against the said judgment and order, the said opposite parties preferred an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide its judgment and order dated 4-11-2007 allowed the appeal and re­manded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh after opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their case as also opportunity of hearing to them. Against the said judgment and order the petitioner filed a revision before opposite party No. 1 who vide judgment and order dated 18-8-2008 dismissed the same and maintained the judgment and order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is the order dismissing the revision that is be­ing assailed in the instant petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri R. K. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri U. S. Sahai, who has accepted notices on behalf of opposite parties No. 3 to 6 and has also filed power on their behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner ve­hemently argued that the appeal itself was not maintainable in as much as the village was notified under Section 52 of the Act on 31-12-1994 pursuant to which consolidation came to an end in the village. Appeal was filed on 24-11-1997 i.e. after the close of the con­solidation proceedings, as such the same was not maintainable and the opposite party No. 2 committed manifest illegality in entertain­ing the appeal and allowing the same.
(3.) SRI Sahai in opposition submitted that even in consolidation proceedings had come to an end still a person whose right, title and interest is involved, has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and the order regard­ing mutation is ex parte with regard to the property in question, against the same an ap­peal would lie. In support of his argument he placed reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court in 2007(1) AWC 86 : (2006 (5) ALJ (NOC) 1075). Bhola Nath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhadohi and others. In the said case an order had been passed against a dead person. An application was preferred af­ter the village had been notified under Sec­tion 52 of the Act. The court observed that a person has right to move an application for recall of the order passed ex parte or against a dead person even after the notification un­der Section 52 of the Act.;