JUDGMENT

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1 & 7 and learned counsel for Gaon Sabha (respondent No. 6) on admission of the writ petition and perused the record on board.

2. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.07.2021, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the restoration application moved on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 12/22/47/85/121 and Revisions No. 13/33/48/86/122.

3. Facts culled out from the averment made in the writ petition are that the property in question basically belongs to one Nanhe. Present petitioner is claiming his right and title over the property in question on basis of unregistered will-deed dated 28.07.1993, however, contesting respondent No. 2 (Mangata) is claiming his right and title on the basis of succession being nephew of the recorded tenure holder Nanhe. Third claim was put forward by Smt. Shakuntla (respondent No. 4) on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 15.05.1997 said to have been executed by one Lallu Singh who was alleged vendee of Nanhe. In mutation proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act (in brevity "L.R. Act"), present petitioner has got his name recorded vide order dated 21.12.1996. During consolidation operation, Smt. Shakuntala (respondent No. 4) has filed objection under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act") for recording her name on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 15.05.1997. Objection filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed vide order dated 21.03.2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Having been aggrieved, petitioner has preferred appeal. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 01.10.2007, has allowed the appeal and quashed the order dated 21.03.2003 with a direction that name of the petitioner shall be recorded in the Revenue Record. It appears that, at subsequent stage, Mangata (respondent No. 2) has filed appeal assailing the order dated 21.03.2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Said appeal was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 25.02.2015, on the ground that earlier an appeal is already decided in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2007. Having been aggrieved, respondent No. 2 has preferred two revisions assailing the order dated 01.10.2007 and 25.02.2015 respectively. Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed both the revisions, vide order dated 13.09.019, remitting the matter before the Consolidation Officer to decide the case afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Having been aggrieved, petitioner has filed restoration application dated 18.09.2019 against the order dated 13.09.2019 which was dismissed by impugned order dated 13.07.2021, as such, instant petition has been filed assailing both the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to quash the order passed by the Revenue Court in the proceeding under Section 34 of the L.R. Act. It is further submitted that on the face of record, order dated 13.09.2019 is an ex parte order passed in absence of the petitioner, therefore, restoration application has illegally been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is further submitted that unregistered will which has been executed in favour of the petitioner has not been challeng