Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner claimed rights on the basis of a lease and filed an objection under Section 9-A (2), which is said to have been allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 1.8.2001.

2. Nineteen days thereafter, another application came to filed by the Gaon SAbha, which was registered as Case No. 236, said to have been moved under Section 21 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. This application was allowed on 20.8.2011 and the name of the petitioner was directed to be expunged and that of the Gaon Sabha was to be restored. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same, which was dismissed on 17.12.2005. A revision preferred against the same was also dismissed and these orders came to be challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 60533 of 2010.

3. The writ petition was allowed on 4.10.2010 and the order passed in favour of the Gaon Sabha on 20.8.2001 was set aside. The judgment dated 4.10.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 60533 of 2010 is extracted hereunder :

“Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Mahesh Narain Singh, Advocate representing the land management committee, respondent No. 4.

The objections filed by the petitioner were allowed by the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 1.8.2001. It appears that an application was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha / State for recalling the order dated 1.8.2001 and for rejecting the objections of the petitioner. On the said application the Consolidation Officer passed an exparte order dated 20.8.2001 recalling the order dated 1.8.2001 and again directing for recording the name of the Gaon Sabha. As the petitioner had no knowledge of the order dated 20.8.2001, having come to know about the same, she filed an appeal which had been dismissed on the ground of limitation and thereafter the revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that once the order dated 20.8.2001 was an exparte order, the appeal of the petitioner ought to have been entertained after condoning the delay. Secondly it is well settled that cases should not be decided on technicalities and the rights of the parties should be adjudicated on merits. In that view of the matter it has been submitted that the Appellate and the Revisional Courts committed illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

From a perusal of the orders passed by the Consolidation Courts, I do not find that any of the Courts have considered the case of the petitioner on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the circumstances the orders passed by the Consolidation Courts are liable to be set aside. The restoration application filed by the Gaon Sabha / State before the Consolidation Officer would be heard on its merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The Consolidation Officer shall make an endeavour to decide the said application within period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Petition is allowed as above. The impugned orders dated 6.6.2010, 17.12.2005 and 20.8.2001 are hereby set aside.”

The operative part of the judgment categorically recites that the restoration application filed by the Gaon Sabha before the Consolidation Officer shall be heard on merits after affording opportunity to the petitioner and the parties concerned.

4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, that there was no restoration application in the case filed by the petitioner, which was registered as Case No. 1682. Secondly, the file of the case was not traceable in which Gaon Sabha had moved the application which was captioned as a restoration application and in the absence of the sa