S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing a revision filed under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, whereunder while setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal, the order of the Consolidation Officer rejecting the objection of the petitioner preferred by him under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming to be the tenure-holder of the land in dispute has been restored, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the order passed by the revising authority.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel representing the respondents and have carefully perused the record.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case, lie in a narrow compass. In this case, the publication of the notice contemplated under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was made on 31. 7. 1967. The petitioner filed an objection on 31. 8. 1976 claiming sirdari rights in the land in dispute on the assertions that he was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document