R.R. Yadav, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Perused the averments made in the writ petition.
(2.) From the averments made in the writ petition, it is revealed that the respondent No. 4, Smt. Savitri Devi had purchased chak No. 311 from Raj Kumar on 11-3-1998. Therefore, on the basis of sale deed dated 11-3-1998, her name was mutated in the revenue records on 29-4-1998, a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
(3.) It is amusing to note that the respondent No. 4 after getting her name mutated over chak No. 311, filed an appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 3-10-1989 and the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the aforesaid appeal, vide his order dated 3-1-2001, against which the petitioners have filed revision No. 901 of 2001 and the respondent No. 4 has also filed revision No. 902 of 2001 and both these revisions are pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 1.;