B.D.Agarwal, J. - (1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Camp Mirzapur dated Dec. 18, 1970.
(2.) Briefly the facts relevant to Hie point in issue may be stated. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, Gopiganj, the petitioners filed 15 appeals in the court of Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation). All these 15 appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated June 21, 1969 by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Aggrieved, the petitioners filed fifteen revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation at Varanasi. All these revisions were filed on Aug. 12, 1969. The memo-randa of revisions of all these fifteen revisions were accompanied by certified copies of the judgment of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which as has already been noticed above was a common judgment deciding all the fifteen appeals. Since the certified copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer were not available on the date when the revisions were filed, though they had been applied for earlier within limitation, these certified copies could not be accompanied with the memorandum of revisions. In all these fifteen revisions the petitioners filed applications praying for grant of time to file certified copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer at a later date after being available. These revisions came up for hearing before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on Dec. 18, 1970. At the time when the revisions were taken up for hearing on behalf of the petitioners thirteen certified copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer which had by then been received, were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Certified copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer in respect of the other two cases had not by then been received and hence could not be filed on that date. At the hearing a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that all these fifteen revisions were liable to be dismissed for want oi certified copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer having been filed along with the revisions. The Deputy Director of Consolidation upheld this preliminary objection and dismissed all these fifteen revisions as being incompetent by his common order dated Dec. 18, 1970 which has been impugned in the present petition.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition must be allowed.;