- (1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Ji Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and Sri J.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
(2.) Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are real brothers of the Petitioner and they have not filed any counter-affidavit. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 to which a reply has been filed and the matter has been heard finally.
(3.) Sri Rajesh Ji Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 22nd July, 1997 is a nullity, inasmuch as, neither the revision had been preferred by the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 nor does it bear their signatures. He further submits that no lawyer had been appointed by them to contest the revision and the Vakalatnama which has been filed in support of the revision also does not bear their signatures. In such a situation, the entire proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation were a nullity and totally ex parte to the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3. He submits that as a matter of fact the order was obtained by manipulating a compromise orally recorded before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was totally against the interest of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3, and it was an alleged settlement between the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4.;