The Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to restore revisions for adjudication; adherence to procedural fairness and inclusion of all parties is mandated under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abrar Ahamad Siddiqui, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr. B. N. Pathak learned standing counsel for state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot no. 661 situated in Village - Bithri Chainpur, Pargana, Tehasil & District – Bareilly. According to petitioner, her husband, namely, Chhavinath purchased some area of plot no. 661 from Ram Bharosey through registered sale-dead dated 8.6.2001 and respondent nos. 3 to 5 also purchased some area of plot no. 661 from Ram Bharosey through registered sale dead dated 21-12-1999. In the proceeding under Section 9- A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Acts 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “U.P.C.H. Act”) it has been held that Sohan Lal (father of Ram Bharosey) cannot be recorded over Khata No-99 Aa in view of judgment & decree dated 30.8.1982 passed by revenue court under Section 176 of UP. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act”), accordingly, Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.1.1990 expunged the name of Sohan Lal from Khata No- 99Aa and entries of Chaina Devi as well as Chuno Devi were affirmed. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.1.1990 was maintained in appeal by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 23.8.1991 as well as by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.3.1999 so for as claim of Sohan Lal was concerned but in respect to Rahaman Shah (vendee of Smt Chaina Devi) the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.1.1990 was partly modified. One proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H Act was initiated by Chhavinath (husband of petitioner) for recording of his name on the basis of sale-deed dated 8.6.2001, alleged to be executed by Ram Bharose. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1.3.2005 rejected the application filed by Chhavinath under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.Act. The order of Consolidation Officer was maintained in appeal by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 25.5.2007 as well as in revision by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 9.1.2008. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 Ram Sewak & 2 others, vendees of Ram Bharosey on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed on 21.12.1999, filed an application under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act which was allowed by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.4.2000 directing to record the names of Ram Sewak & 2 others in place of Ram Bharosey. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 6.4.2000, direct revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by Chhavinath (husband of petitioner) which was allowed vide order dated 3.9.2012, setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act afresh. After passing of remand order dated 3.9.2012 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7.11.2012 ordered to record the name of Chhavinath on the basis of sale deed dated 8.6.2001 as well as name of Ram Sewak & 2 others on the basis of sale deed dated 21.12.1999, alleged to be executed by Ram Bharosey. Against the order dated 7.11.2012, respondent no.2/Chaina Davi filed a restoration application before Consolidation Officer as well as before Deputy Director of Consolidation on 29.1.2013 against the order dated 3.9.2012 alongwith application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act. Respondent nos.3 to 5 alongwith Shanti Devi filed objection to the aforementioned time barred restoratio