SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard Ms.Pooja Agarwal, counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajeshwar Singh holding brief of Shri Ram Janam Singh, counsel for respondent no.2. As all the three writ petitions relate to the same matter and arise out of the same proceedings, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
(2.) The counsel for the respondents states that the writ petitions may be decided on the facts stated and the documents annexed with the writ petition itself and no counter affidavit was required to be filed. Therefore, the Court has proceeded to finally decide the case on merits.
(3.) The facts of the case are that during the consolidation proceedings in the Village, the respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) which was decided ex parte against the petitioners and in favour of respondent no.2 by the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as C.O.) vide order dated 3.4.1986 on the basis of a compromise allegedly filed in the said case. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a recall application for recall of the order dated 3.4.1986 on the ground that the compromise was not signed by the parties and the order was passed without issuing any notice to the concerned parties. The recall application filed by the petitioners was allowed by order dated 28.8.1986 passed by the C.O. The respondent filed a recall application for recall of the order dated 28.8.1986 which was dismissed by the C.O. vide his order dated 11.9.1986. Subsequently, the respondent no. 2 filled another application for recall of the order dated 28.8.1986 which was also dismissed by the C.O. vide his order dated 15.10.1986. Against the orders dated 15.10.1986 and 28.8.1986, the respondent no. 2 filed Appeal No.210 under Section 11 of the Act 1953 which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C.) vide his order dated 13.4.2016 on ground of delay and also on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable as the impugned orders passed by the C.O. were interlocutory in nature. Consequently, the respondent no. 2 filed Revision Nos.400/401/402 under Section 48 of the Act 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as D.D.C.) against the orders dated 28.8.1986 and 15.10.1986 passed by the C.O. as well as against the order dated 13.4.2016 passed by the S.O.C. The D.D.C. by a common judgment/order dated 14.5.2019 allowed the aforesaid revisions and has set aside the orders dated 28.8.1986, 15.10.1986 and 13.4.2016 and has remanded back the matter to the C.O. to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence. The order dated 14.5.2019 passed by the D.D.C. has been challenged in the present writ petition.;