NARAYAN SHUKLA,J. - (1.) HEAD Mr. R.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.C.Mishra, learned Standing counsel as well as Mr.U.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 5.
(2.) BEING aggrieved with order dated 16.7.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich/Shravasti i.e. opposite party no.1 in Revision Nos. 632 and 444 the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. The factual metrics of the case is that on the objection filed by under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act(Hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Consolidation Officer,Ikauna, Shravasti passed the order on 16.3.2010, pursuant to which an order was passed on 7.4.2010 for mutation of names of opposite parties 2 to 4 in the revenue records. The same was mutated on 9.4.2010. Being aggrieved with order dated 16.3.2010 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners filed appeal bearing no. 384/09-10 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bhinga, Sharvasti, who passed the interim order on 15.4.2010 staying the operation of order dated 16.3.2010 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The opposite parties challenged the same before the Deputy Director of Consolidation,Bahraich/Shravasti through revisions no. 632 and 444 on the ground that the interim order was passed without providing opportunity of hearing to them.
(3.) THE petitioners raised objection against the maintainability of the revisions on the ground that the same were filed against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was interlocutory in nature, therefore, the revision was not maintainable. The revisional court on the premises of some decisions referred in the order impugned maintained the revision and decided the same on merit.;