Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The dispute relates to khatauni Khata No. 113 Ba, which was recorded in the name of Ravi Nandan S/o Kamta. The land comprising in the said khata is in village Hariharpur, Pargana Shadiabad, District Ghazipur. The said village was brought under consolidation operation. The consolidation proceedings were concluded and on 9th June, 1970, the village was de-notified under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the Act’).

2. Again for the second time on 26th December, 1983, the village was notified for consolidation by notification issued under Section 4(2) of the Act. For the purposes of filing the objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, the notification was issued on 9th October, 1986 and another notification under Section 20 of the Act was issued on 14th March, 1988. The Chaks were carved out and Chak No. 276 thereafter, was allotted to Ravi Nandan to whom the possession was delivered on 30th August, 1990.

3. After the finalization of all the proceedings under the said Act, Chandrama respondent No. 3 herein filed a belated objection on 7th November, 1996 (after ten years) under Section 9-A(2) of the Act alongwith an application to condone the delay in its filing. Respondent No. 3 in brief, pleaded that he has acquired bhumidhari right over the land in dispute being in adverse possession for more than the prescribed period of limitation. The objection was registered as a case and it was decided in terms of the compromise between Chandrama and Ravi Nandan by accepting the case of Chandrama. The compromise application is the basis of order of the Consolidation Officer dated 23rd September, 1998.

4. On coming to know of the said compromise, Ravi Nandan preferred a belated appeal being Appeal No. 6247 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (the S.O.C.) and sought the condonation of delay on the allegations that the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer were, all ex parte. He was not even served with any notice of the proceedings. The compromise filed before the Consolidation Officer is forged and fictitious document. The said compromise was not signed by him. The S.O.C. on the finding that no notice etc. on the petitioner was ever served as the notice was affected by affixation and the notice was also addressed to different village other than the one where Ravi Nandan was residing, has set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and restored the case back for fresh consideration by providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, by the order dated 2nd September, 1999. Both Ravi Nandan as well as contesting respondent preferred revisions being Revision Nos. 1886 of 1999, Chandrama v. Ravi Nandan and 1729 of 1999; Ravi Nandan v. Chandrama before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (the D.D.C.) against the aforestated appellate order, who by the impugned order dated 15th November, 2003 allowed the revision, which was preferred by respondent No. 3 and dismissed the revision filed by Ravi Nandan, on the findings that:

(i) The appeal before the S.O.C. was not maintainable as the proper course was to file a recall application before the Consolidation Officer; and

(ii) The possession of respondent No. 3 over the disputed land beyond period of 12 years is established and as such he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession.

5. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 15th November, 2003, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Heard Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional Court has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by law in setting aside the remand order passed by the S.O.C. Submission is that the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer were ex parte and the said proceeding was rightly set aside by the S.O.C. in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, no