Y.K.SANGAL,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order 15.02.2006 passed the Deputy Director of Consolidation (for short D.D.C) under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer after setting aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer (for short C.O.) dated 26.09.1985 and also the order dated 21.05.2002 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation (for short S.O.C)/appellate authority, confirming the order passed by the C.O., and prayed to set aside the order passed in the Revision dated 15.02.2006.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. First point to challenge the validity of the order dated 15.02.2006 is that against the order of the appellate authority (S.O.C) no revision was maintainable as provided under Rule 109 (3) of the Act, where appeal has been provided against the order of the C.O. and the respondent no. 2 had availed this opportunity and filed the appeal which was dismissed by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 21.05.2002. It is provided under Rule 109 (3) that the appellate court's order is final, hence the revision against the order was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 cited law reported in 2008 (3) AWC 2793 Subba and others vs. D.D.C., where this court held that under Section 48 of the Act, D.D.C is not precluded from examining the correctness of an order passed by the S.O.C., under Rule 109 of the Rules of the Act. No law in reply has been cited on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, in view of the law laid down by this Court referred above, this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is without merit.
(3.) OTHER grounds for challenge are as follows: (A) On the basis of the possession of the petitioners on the property in dispute, their names were recorded by the C.O., vide its order dated 26.09.1995 and their possession was never denied either by the respondent no. 2 or his father and the case filed by father of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act against the petitioners was dismissed and petitioners' possession was also certified by the Naib Tehsildar of the area in his report dated 17.01.1968. (B) Their possession and ownership on the property in dispute was held by the learned District Judge in Land Acquisition Case (Reference No. 60 of 1976 Matabadal Singh vs. Ghirou) vide order dated 12.12.1978 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) which was also confirmed by this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 41 of 1979 Ghirou vs. Mata Badal Singh (Annexure No. 7) and their possession was also accepted by Khusi Ram in his statement recorded on 30.11.1988 (Annexure No. 8). ;