Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Singh for contesting respondent No. 3.
(2.) LAND in dispute originally belongs to one Shambhu. On his death, an objection under section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consoli dation of Holdings Act was filed by one Shiv Bhushan for recording his name on the ground that he was heir of deceased tenure holder. The said objection was de cided by the Assistant Consolidation Offi cer vide order dated 6.7.1993 and his name was directed to be mutated in the records in place of deceased Shambhu. Petitioner claims to have purchased the land from Shiv Bhushan by means of registered sale deed dated 18.11.1993 and thereafter it ap pears that his name also came to be mu tated on the basis of the order dated 25.2.1994 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The order dated 6.7.1993 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Offi cer directing to record the name of Shiv Bhushan-vendor of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No. 3 by filing an appeal claiming himself to be the son of the deceased tenure holder Shambhu. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 29.12.1995 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Consolida tion Officer to decide the same afresh after opportunity of hearing and evidence to the parties. After remand, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.11.1997 di rected the name of the respondent No. 3 to be recorded in the revenue record. Thereaf ter, the petitioner moved an application to recall the order dated 20.11.1997 on the ground that impleadment application filed by him on 3.9.1996 was pending and with out deciding the same and without any opportunity of hearing to him, the order has been passed. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.12.1997 issued notice on the said application and stayed the ef fect and operation of the order dated 20.11.1997. The matter remained pending before the Consolidation Officer. All of sudden, after about 11 years, the respon dent No. 3 filed a revision challenging the orders dated 20.11.1997 as well as 17.12.1997 passed by Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 2.1.2009 allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 17.12.1997 and confirmed the order dated 20.11.1997 by which the name of the peti tioner was directed to be recorded over the land in dispute. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 17.12.1997 was only interlocu tory order and the revision against the said order has wrongly been entertained and allowed by the Deputy Director of Con solidation. It has further been submitted that the Consolidation Officer prima facie finding that the order dated 20.11.1997 was passed without notice and opportunity to the petitioner and only notice has been is sued on the recall application and during the pendency of the proceedings even without there being any adjudication on merits by the Consolidation Officer, the 1 Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly and illegally adjudicated the rights without any opportunity to the peti tioner to lead any evidence. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the im pugned order.
(3.) I have considered the arguments , advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the detail facts of the case mentioned above it is clear that the peti tioner was not given opportunity to lead evidence as the case was decided by the Consolidation Officer during the pendency of his application for impleadment. It also cannot be disputed that the petitioner being purchaser of the land in dispute from Shiv Bhushan whose name was recorded in the revenue records atleast has the same inter est in the land and it was imperative that he ought to have been given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case. Deputy Director of Consolidation, as a matter of fact, wrongly and illegally enter tained the revision and confirmed the order dated 20.11.1997 which was stayed by the Consolidation Officer himself on the recall application filed by the petitioner. Revision filed by respondent No. 3 against the aforesaid two orders were not at all maintain able and the same have wrongly and ille gally been entertained and allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;