DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.2 and 3.
(2.) Under challenge in this petition are two orders passed on 03.07.2018 and 29.11.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on a restoration application preferred by the respondent nos.2 and 3 whereby the prayer was made for recalling the order dated 27.05.1989 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The basic premise of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners for challenging the orders under challenge herein is that the orders dated 03.07.2018 and 29.11.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in fact, amount to reviewing the order dated 27.05.1989 which is impermissible in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court at Allahabad in the case of Shivraji and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, reported in [1997 (3) ALR 680].
(3.) The facts of the case, which can be gathered from the pleadings available on the writ petition, are that the land in dispute was recorded in the basic year in the name of Maniram, who is the predecessor in interest of the respondent nos.2 and 3 being their grand father. During field to filed Padtal, the father of the petitioners late Faujdar was found in possession in clause 9 and on the basis of the said possession, he filed objections under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming the land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. The objections preferred by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, Faujdar was dismissed in default on 12.03.1986 and thereafter he moved a restoration application, which too was rejected in dismissed in default on 24.03.1987. On second restoration application, the case was restored on 07.06.1988. A compromise is said to have been filed on 25.06.1988, on the basis of which the Consolidation Officer passed an order on 02.07.1988 whereby the name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, Faujdar was ordered to be recorded. Against the said order dated 02.07.1988 an appeal was preferred which was allowed on 15.02.1990 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The matter was thus remanded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide his order dated 15.02.1990 to the Court of Consolidation Officer where 24.03.1990 was the date fixed by the remand order. However, on account of non-appearance of the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer, objection filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 24.03.1990. There is no dispute that against the said order dated 24.03.1990 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners have neither filed any appeal or revision, nor have they yet sought any restoration of the matter.;