RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Tripathi B.C. Bhai, learned Counsel for the peti­tioner, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) BY means of the present writ peti­tion, petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.5.2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharath Nagar. Brief facts of the case are that against the order of Settlement Officer, petitioner filed revision No. 1144. The said revision has been decided ex-parte vide order dated 17.6.2002. Since the order was passed ex-parte without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, petitioner moved recalling application, which has been allowed vide order dated 22.12.2003 and the date of hearing was fixed on 9.1.2004. Instead of deciding the revision on merit after hearing both the parties. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 31.5.2008 has cancelled the order dated 22.12.2003, by which he has al­lowed the recalling application and affirmed the order dated 17.6.2002.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is pat­ently illegal. He submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have de­cided the revision on merit after giving op­portunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned parties instead of setting aside the order dated 22.12.2003 and af­firming the order dated 17.6.2002. He fur­ther submitted that once the recalling ap­plication has been allowed vide order dated 22.12.2003 and the earlier order dated 17.6.2002 has been recalled, there is no justification for affirming the order dated 17.6.2002.;