Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Jaiswal for respondent No. 2 and Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad for respondent No. 3.
(2.) FOR correction of double entry in chak No. 609 and 145, Consolidation Offi cer prepared a reference and forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Consolida tion which was registered as reference No. 1071. Exercising power conferred by sec tion 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Hold ings Act, the Deputy Director of Consoli dation passed an order dated 29.6.1972 ac cepting the chart forwarded by the Con solidation Officer along with his report making amendments in the chak. The said order could not be incorporated in the rec ord and thereafter, on an application moved by the petitioner under Rule 109, an order dated 13.3.1995 was passed by the Consolidation Officer directing the Tehsildar, Modinagar to carry out the amend ments as per the order passed by the Dep uty Director of Consolidation dated 26.6.1972. Still the order was not incorpo rated in the Revence record. As such, the petitioner moved another application con solidation Officer passed an order dated 16.5.2001 for incorporation of the order in the record. At the time of accepting the refer ence in the year 1972, the land in dispute was situated in village Sarna, Muradnagar. Subsequently, in the year 1983, the land in dispute came to be included in the limit of Nagar Palika Parishad, Muradnagar, district Ghaziabad After about 30 years, re spondent No. 2 claiming himself to be member of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mu radnagar moved an application to recall the order dated 29.6.1972 passed by the Dep uty Director of Consolidation. The application was contested by the petitioner mainly on the ground that respondent No. 2 Satya Pal Singh was not a party to the said pro ceedings and the restoration application having been filed after 30 years is highly barred by time. It was also pleaded that in his capacity as member he cannot maintain the application without there being any resolution by the Nagar Palika Parishad. The objection filed by the petitioner was overruled and the Deputy Director of Con solidation held that the recall application was maintainable vide order dated 18.4.2002. The petitioner challenge the said order before this Court in writ petition No. 18657 of 2002 which was disposed of with liberty to file a detailed objection and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was di rected to decide the recall application filed by the contesting respondent after hearing the parties. By means of the impugned or der dated 4.7.2002, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the application and recalled the order dated 29.6.1972. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the im pugned orders cursory in nature and with out even considering the objection raised by the petitioner as directed by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2002. It has further been pointed out that recall application filed by one of members of Nagar Palika Parishad without any resolution passed by the Nagar Palika Parishad authorising him to contest the proceedings, the application was not maintainable and has wrongly and illegally been allowed. It has also been pointed out that the application to recall the order after 30 years without any rea sonable and justifiable cause was not maintainable and furthermore, since the order dated 29.6.1972 was passed after bearing Gaon Shabha, the Nagar Palika Parishad, who came into existence subsequently, could not have maintained the application to recall the said order.
(3.) IN reply, learned Counsel for the respondents have tried to justify the im pugned order. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the par ties and perused the record.;