S.N. Singh, J. - (1.) MR . Ram Surat Singh made a statement before me that under some misapprehension of fact he had earlier made a statement that Sheo Balak Singh was dead. As a matter of fact Sheo Balak Singh is alive and this fact has been accepted by Sri R.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the Respondents. As such there is no necessity of bringing the heirs of Sheo Balak Singh on the record.
(2.) THIS petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of consolidation proceedings. It appears that chaks were carved out Under Section 20 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act and necessary notices were issued. Necessary publication was also made on 30th November 1963. On 29th June 1964 the Petitioners filed an objection to the chaks already carved out by the Consolidation Officer. The grievance of the Petitioners was that they were not served with any notice of CH Form 23 and that every thing was done in a fraudulent manner because the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Lekhpal were residing in the house of the contesting Respondent, Radhey Shyam. The Consolidation Officer called for a report and after having received the report about non -service on the Petitioners condoned the delay and directed a date to be fixed for the final disposal of the case. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer an appeal was preferred by the opposite party No. 5, Radhey Shyam. The appeal was allowed. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was of the opinion that notice issued for the tenure holders was served on one Sheo Nath who was a co tenure holder along with the Petitioners. In his view this was sufficient service and since no sufficient cause had been shown, the Petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of Section 5 Limitation Act. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the objection filed by the Petitioners.
(3.) A revision was preferred against the decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Dy. Director of Consolidation was of the opinion that there was some manipulation done in the records of the consolidation authorities and that the notice showed that it was served not on Sheo Nath but really it appears to have been served on Sheo Balak. Having arrived at this conclusion, he maintained the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) but he was of the opinion that steps should be taken against the staff of the consolidation department who had colluded with one party or the other in the matter of service of the summonses. Against the orders of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Dy. Director of Consolidation the present writ petition has been filed.;