Consolidation Authorities do not have the power to review their own decisions.

SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari learned counsel for respondent No. 5. The counsel of Gaon Sabha is absent.

2. The orders impugned in the present petition are the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as also the order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby the restoration application filed by the respondent No. 5/appellant was allowed and the previous order dated 19.4.2017 passed on the merit of the appeal was recalled. The revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.10.2017 has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability being against the interlocutory order. Before filing of the present petition, it appears that by an order dated 10.1.2018, the Settlement Officer Consolidation had decided the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 afresh on merits.

3. By means of the amendment application, the order dated 10.1.2018 is also under challenge on the ground of being without jurisdiction.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Consolidation Authorities do not have power to review their own decisions. The appeal filed by the respondent No. 5 was decided on merits after hearing the parties on 19.4.2017. The respondent No. 5 instead of challenging the said order before the higher court i.e., in a revision, moved a recall application on the ground that he was not aware of the date fixed i.e., 19.4.2017 and the appellant could not appear before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the said date.

5. A perusal of the order dated 19.4.2017 categorically indicates that all the parties and their counsels were heard. Even otherwise, the appeal was filed by the respondent No. 5 himself, he was obliged to follow the proceeding of appeal and remain aware of the date fixed. The decision on merits of the appeal dated 19.4.2017 could not have been recalled under the garb of the same being an ex parte order. The order dated 31.10.2017 whereby the recall application was allowed is nothing but an order in the nature of review under the garb of it being on a restoration application. The Settlement Officer Consolidation had become functus officio having passed the order dated 19.4.2017 on the merits of the appeal.

6. In view of the above, the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation cannot be sustained. The same is hereby quashed.

7. The revisional court had committed grave error of law in ignoring this aspect of the matter while rejecting the revision on the ground of maintainability. As the order of recall dated 31.10.2017 has been set aside, the subsequent order dated 10.1.2018 has lost its efficacy.

8. It would be open for the respondent No. 5 to challenge the order dated 19.4.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in dismissing his appeal on merits before the higher court/Forum. In case, the revision is filed by the respondent No. 5 along-with Section 5 application, the revisional court shall consider the explanation offered by the respondent and make an endeavour to decide the same expeditiously.

9. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed.