PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - (1.) IT is not in dispute between the parties that the land in question in the basic year was recorded in the name of Anant Ram. After the death of Anant Ram, two proceedings for mutation were initiated by the parties. The petition­ers filed an application under section 9-A (2) of the U.P. C.H. Act which was regis­tered as case No. 212 for recording their names in place of deceased Anant Ram as his heirs and successors. Since the said application was barred by time, it was accompanied with an application for condo­nation of delay in its filing. The Consolida­tion Officer by the order dated 3.6.1998 re­fused to condone the delay and rejected the application filed by the petitioners.
(2.) ANOTHER application for mutation was filed by Satya Narain and Ram Saran sons of Shamu and Raju sons of Ram Lakhan (grand sons of the deceased) on the basis of a registered Will dated 2nd of April, 1994 in their favour. In this case, the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 5th of December, 1997, since there was no objection by other side, ordered mutation of the names of Satya Narain etc. in the light of the registered Will dated 2.4.1994. Against the aforestated two or­ders, two appeals were filed before the Set­tlement Officer Consolidation. Appeal No. 1453 was directed against the order dated 5.12.1997 and it was accompanying an application for condonation of delay in its filing. Appeal No. 3672 was filed by the petitioners against the order dated 3.6.1998 whereby the Consolidation Officer refused to condone the delay in filing the applica­tion for mutation of their names.
(3.) BOTH the matters were heard to­gether and were decided by a common judgment dated 31.8.2006 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation who found that no proper publication etc. was done while or­dering the mutation of the names of Satya Narain etc. on the basis of the alleged regis­tered Will in their favour. He was of the view that it is necessary in the interest of justice that opportunity be given to the parties to prove and contest the Will in question. The delay in filing the mutation application on the facts of the present case before the Consolidation Officer was con­doned by the order dated 31.8.2006. Against the said order, a Revision No. 1857 of 2006 was filed which came up for con­sideration before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by ' the impugned order dated 27.10.2007 has set aside the order dated 31.8.2006 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and restored the ap­peal No. 1463 to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned on the question of limitation. It has been further provided that if a revision is filed against order dated 3.6.1998, the said revision shall be disposed of inde­pendently uninfluenced by any of the ob­servations made by him in the impugned order. The Deputy Director of Consolida­tion was of the view that against the order dated 3.6.1998, the appeal before the Set­tlement Officer Consolidation was not maintainable as the objections were dis­missed by the Consolidation Officer being barred by time and the delay in its filing was not condoned.;