VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed today is taken on record.
(2.) HEARD Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kripa Shankar, Advocate representing re­spondent Nos. 2 to 4. With regard to re­spondent Nos. 5 to. 7 it has been stated by the Counsels for both the sides that they are proforma parties and the contesting re­spondents are only respondent Nos. 2 to 4. With the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties and in view of the statement made above, this petition is being finally heard. The Deputy Director of Consoli­dation accepted a reference by the order dated 3.6.1999, which allegedly had been prepared by the Consolidation Officer with the consent of the parties in order to adjust the equities between them. Vishwanath father of the petitioner No. 1 and husband of the petitioner No. 2 applied for recall of the order dated 3.6.1999 by means of an application dated 5.11.2003 on the ground that he had not been made a party in the reference and had not been afforded due opportunity and despite the same his chak has been adversely affected. It is also submitted that from the chak of the peti­tioners an area measuring 0.20 acres had been taken away and he had given new chak measuring only 0.10 acres. The appli­cation was contested by the respondents and they filed objections stating that Vishwanath had been given due notice and also he had participated in the preparation of the reference as such the application was based upon incorrect facts and deserves to be rejected. The Deputy Director of Con­solidation by the impugned order dated 17.7.2010 had rejected the application for condonation of the delay and consequently the recall application on the ground that satisfactory explanation had not been given to condone the delay.
(3.) SUBMISSION advanced on behalf of the petitioners is based upon the applica­tion seeking the reference which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the petition in which only State of U.P. was arrayed as the op­posite party. It is further submitted that the petitioners or predecessor in interest of the petitioners had not been arrayed. It is fur­ther submitted that the application seeking reference was filed on 19.5.1999 and there­after reference was prepared and was ap­proved within 15 days on 3.6.1999, thus there was no question of giving any notice to the petitioners. Petitioners have further annexed a copy of the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer from which also it appears that the notice had not been given to the Vishwanath. Learned Counsel for the respondents has sought to argue that Vishwanath had been given notice.;