Surendra Narain Singh, J. - (1.) The dispute in the present case is in respect of plot No. 120/2 measuring .30 acres and 128/1 measuring .17 acres. On the publication of the statement of principle the petitioner filed an objection in respect of the above two plots which were recorded in the name of Sheopujan and others. The petitioners claimed to have become adivasi and sirdar of these two plots on account of being a sub -tenant and being recorded occupant in 1356 F. and being in cultivatory possession in 1359 F. The AGO forwarded this case for disposal to the CO. From the order of the CO it appears that he issued notices to the co -sharers and only two persons Sheopujan and Smt. Hubraji appeared amongst the recorded co -tenure holders. Smt. Hubraji admitted the claim of the petitioner. It was only Sheopujan who contested the claim. Having considered the cases of the parties the CO accepted the petitioners' claim and directed that the petitioner be entered as sirdar over these two plots. This order was upheld by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).
(2.) In revision the Dy. Director has set aside these concurrent orders only on the ground that in the khata in dispute there were other co -tenure holders who were six in number, and they were not made parties to the proceeding. The Dy. Director has not decided the case on merits. Aggrieved with the order of the Dy. Director the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) It has been stated in the writ petition that Sheopujan and Smt. Hubraji along with Ramdeo were only the tenure holders of these two plots. It is averred that Ramdeo died leaving the other two persons as his heirs. It is asserted that there were no other tenure holders of these two plots. There is no categorical denial of these facts in the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit only states that the order of the Dy. Director in this respect is perfectly correct. R. 25 -A sub -cl. (2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Rules reads as follows: - - In all cases in which the ACO sends a report, under the provisions of sub -S. (2) of S. 9A, or sub -S. (1) of S. 9B to the CO for disposal, he may fix a date and place for the disposal of the cases by the CO and communicate the same to the parties present before him and issue notices in C.H. Form 6 -A to the parties not so present. The report of the ACO in such cases shall clearly bring out the points in dispute between the parties and the efforts made by him to reconcile them. This provision would suggest that a duty is cast on the ACO to inform the parties present before him and the parties who are absent have to be informed the date and place on which they have to appear before the CO. From the judgment of the CO it appears that he had informed all the co -sharers of these two plots in respect of the objection of the petitioner. No objection appears to have been taken before the CO or the SO (G) about non -impleadment of any necessary party. It is for the first time that such an objection appears to have been taken before the Dy. Director and the Dy. Director has accepted this objection and allowed the revision.;