R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 27.8.1998 and 28.1.1988 passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 contained in annexure-10 and 8 respectively to the writ petition. A prayer to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the orders dated 27.8.1998 and 28.1.1988 has also been made.
(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that a compromise is alleged to have been arrived at between the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4. On the basis of said compromise, the names of the petitioners were recorded over the land in dispute as the co-tenure holders. It was after about ten years that a revision was filed by the petitioners and the respondents 3 and 4 jointly against the order dated 26.2.1970. The fact of filing of the aforesaid revision was not admitted by the contesting respondents in the counter affidavit. It is also stated that respondents No. 3 and 4 filed appeals against the order dated 26.2.1970 denying the knowledge of the compromise entered into between the parties. Respondent No. 2 allowed the appeal and remanded the case for decision afresh to the Consolidation Officer, Challenging the validity of the order dated 28.1.1988, petitioner filed a revision. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Education by order dated 27.8.1998. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is wholly illegal, against the evidence on record and against the facts of the case, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that since disputed questions of fact were involved in the case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties and after going through the material on the record came to the conclusion that it would be better to remand the case to the Consolidation Officer and upheld the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.;