ORDER Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Smt. Durga Tiwari, earned Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the contesting respondents.
2. The order dated 19.10.1985 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria is impugned in the instant writ petition. The dispute relates to Plot No. 941 having an area 25 decimal only, which was recorded in the name of respondent No. 2 Shyam Deo son of Ram Sewak, respondent No. 3, Janardan and Narender sons of Ram Deo in the basic year Khatauni. The petitioner claims to be owner in possession of the disputed land. The controversy arose on account of reason that the contesting respondents instituted a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaration over the plot in question. The respondents claimed that the disputed land belong to them and also that the name of the petitioner be expunged. This suit was decreed ex parte on 10.1.1973, consequent thereof the name of the contesting respondents was recorded. When the petitioner came to know about the ex parte decree, an application was filed for setting it aside, which was dismissed. The petitioner preferred an Appeal No. 421/1060 before the Additional Commissioner, which was allowed vide order dated 3.1.1978. The case was remanded for a fresh decision on merit. The respondents filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was pending on the date when this instant writ petition was filed. Today it has been brought to my notice by Smt. Durga Tiwari that the said revision pending before the Board of Revenue was dismissed in default in 1990. A question-answer has been produced in support of her contention and also that the said order has not been recalled till date. Meaning thereby the ex parte decree dated 10.1.1973 has been set aside by the Additional Commissioner. This fact however has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondents. During the pendency of revision before the Board of Revenue, the village was notified for consolidation operation. The name of the respondents was recorded on the basis of ex parte decree passed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The petitioner filed his objections under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of the petitioner vide order dated 20.12.1978 and directed that the name of the contesting respondents be expunged from the disputed plot. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Deoria who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 11.1.1980. The said order was challenged in revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 19.10.1985 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
3. I have perused the order of the revisional court. The basis for allowing the revision is an ex parte decree, which admittedly was set aside in appeal. The revision against the said order stands dismissed, therefore, the contention of the counsel for the respondents and ground for allowing the revision that the matter cannot be adjudicated for the second time and barred by principle of res Judicata is justified. The admitted position is that the decree was ex parte which stood recalled in appeal and. therefore, the judgment and order passed under Section 229B declaring the respondents' title could not be legally relied upon by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
4. In the facts and circumstances. I come to a conclusion that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed manifest error of law in allowing the revision on the basis of an ex parte decree under Section 229B which is in fact not in existence. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is perfectly legal.
5. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.10.1985 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for, a fresh decision on merits.