RAJIV SHARMA,J. - (1.) HON 'ble
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners submits that on initiation of consolidation proceedings, petitioners filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act indicating therein that the plot No. 132/1 is an 'abadi' land which has incorrectly been shown as 'banjar'. After obtaining reports, the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 4.12.1969 allowed the objections and directed for recording the same as 'abadi'.
(3.) ACCORDING to the counsel for the petitioners, in 1977, one Kailash Yadav made a complaint to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on the executive side in respect of the aforesaid land. On the basis of the report of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) the Deputy Director Consolidation vide order dated 2.2.1977 set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). When the petitioner came to know the aforesaid order, he moved an application on 15.12.1977 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2.2.1977. This application was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 6.6.1978.;