SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Vishnu Pratap, counsel for the petitioner. The facts of the case are that Suleman i.e. respondent no. 2 was recorded in the basic year records regarding the disputed plots. During the consolidation proceedings in the Village, one Noor Mohd. filed objections under Section 9 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) claiming to be co-tenure holder of the disputed plots along with respondent no.2. The objections of Noor Mohd. were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as C.O) and the appeal filed against the order of the C.O was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. (hereinafter referred to as 'S.O.C'). Subsequently, Noor Mohd. Filed a Revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as 'D.D.C') vide his order dated 24.11.1966. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.1966 passed by the Revisional Court, the respondent no.2 filed a writ petition which was allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the D.D.C to pass fresh orders in accordance with the directions given in the order of this Court. Subsequently, the D.D.C vide his order dated 10.2.1975 dismissed the revision filed by Noor Mohd. During the proceedings in the revision, Noor Mohd. died and his sons Saqoor Ali, Rasool Bux, Abdool Majida and Mohd.Hameed Ali were substituted as legal representatives in place of Noor Mohd. The order dated 10.2.1975 passed by the D.D.C was challenged by the aforesaid legal representatives of Noor Mohd. in this Court through Writ Petition No.2930 of 1975 which was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 18.10.1976. In its order dated 18.10.1976, passed in Writ Petition No.2930 of 1975, the Court held that Noor Mohd. had no right over the disputed plots and neither Noor Mohd. nor the petitioners were in possession over the disputed plots. Consequently, the order dated 10.2.1975 passed by the D.D.C was upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No.2930 of 1975. Meanwhile, in pursuance to the order dated 10.2.1975, a reference was prepared by the S.O.C which was accepted by the D.D.C vide his order dated 5.1.1976.
(2.) Meanwhile, the petitioner who is the son of Saqoor Ali i.e. one of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2930 of 1975 and one of the persons who was substituted in place of Noor Mohd. in the Revision before the D.D.C as the son and legal representative of Noor Mohd., filed an application under Section 12 of the Act 1953 for mutation of his name in the revenue records. The claim of the petitioner was based on some Will dated 14.8.1974 allegedly executed by Noor Mohd in his favour. The application of the petitioner was allowed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as A.C.O) vide his order dated 24.9.1974 and the appeal filed by respondent no.2 was dismissed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as A.S.O.C) vide his order dated 11.11.1980. The orders dated 24.9.1974 and 11.11.1980 were challenged by respondent no. 2 through Revision No.90/140 and 90-A/140 before the Chief Revenue Officer, Basti i.e. respondent no.1 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953. Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed application before the D.D.C for recall of the order dated 10.2.1975 passed by the D.D.C dismissing the revision filed by Noor Mohd. The said recall application was rejected by D.D.C vide his order dated 20.9.1980. The petitioner filed another recall application which was also dismissed by the D.D.C vide his order dated 9.10.1985 and subsequently, the petitioner filed a third recall application praying for recall of the orders dated 10.2.1975, 20.9.1980 and 9.10.1985. The recall applications were pending before the D.D.C and a reference was made by the S.O.C regarding the said recall applications to respondent no.1 and the said reference were numbered as Reference Nos.209/1289, 210/1290, 211/1291, 212/1960 and 213/199. The aforesaid references were clubbed with Revision No.90/140 and 90-A/140 filed by respondent no.2 and heard together by respondent no.1.
(3.) The respondent no.1 vide his order dated 22.12.1993 dismissed Reference Nos.209/1289, 210/1290, 211/1291, 212/1960 and 213/199 and consequently, the recall applications filed by the petitioner and allowed Revision No. 90/40 and 90-A/40 thereby setting aside the orders dated 24.9.1974 and 11.11.1980 passed by the A.C.O and the A.S.O.C. It is evident from a reading of the order dated 22.12.1993 passed by respondent no.1 that the plea of the petitioner before respondent no.1 was that he was not a party in the revisional proceedings before the D.D.C and in Writ Petition No.2930 of 1975 and therefore, the order dated 10.2.1975 passed by the D.D.C and order dated 18.10.1976 in Writ Petition No.2930 of 1975 were not binding on him. The said plea has not been accepted by respondent no.1 through his order dated 22.12.1993. The order dated 22.12.1993 passed by the respondent no.1 has been challenged in the present writ petition. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that even though after the death of Noor Mohd., the estate of Noor Mohd. devolved upon the petitioner by virtue of the Will dated 14.8.1974, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party or substituted in place of Noor Mohd. by respondent no.2 in the revisional proceedings and the petitioner was not a party before this Court in Writ Peittion No.2930 of 1975. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that for the aforesaid reason, the orders dated 10.2.1975 and 18.10.1976 passed by the Revisional Court and the High Court were not binding on the petitioner and the opinion of respondent no.1 that the petitioner was bound by the said orders are vitiated by errors of law apparent on face of record. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that for the aforesaid reason, the order dated 22.12.1993 passed by respondent no. 1 is liable to be set aside. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.;