Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ayub Khan for contesting respondent No. 3.
(2.) SRI Ayub Khan states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit. In view of the above statement, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage. Objection under section 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') was filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 challenging the valuation of some of the plots which included the plots of the petitioner as well on the ground that they have been wrongly valued at .90 paise and should be valued .50 paise. Vide order dated 30.6.2005 Consolidation Officer reduced the valuation of the said plots from .90 paise to .70 paise. A time barred appeal was filed by the petitioner. Settlement Officer Consolidation finding that the order of the Consolidation Officer reducing the valuation of the plots was passed with out any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without making spot inspection, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.1.2007. Respondent No. 3 went up in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 5.6.2007 dismissed the revision. The respondent No. 3 moved an application to recall the order dated 5.6.2007, which was dismissed on 15.11.2007. She again moved a recall appli cation which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.3.2008 and revision was restored. Subse quently, Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 3.6.2008 allowed the revi sion and set aside the appellate order and confirmed the order passed by the Con solidation Officer.
(3.) IT has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that Settlement Officer Consolidation had allowed the ap peal on the ground that the Consolidation Officer refixed the valuation of his plots without any notice or opportunity of hear ing 'and by the impugned order Deputy Director of Consolidation has restored back the ex-parte order without recording any finding that the order of the Consolidation Officer was not ex-parte. In reply, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has tried to justify the impugned orders.;