A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Gajendra Pratap learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri T.P. Singh learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties agree that the matter can be disposed of finally at this stage itself without awaiting for any further affidavits and therefore with the consent of the parties this petition is being disposed of finally. This is a dispute arising out of summary proceedings which the petitioners allege to be without jurisdiction. It is also urged by the petitioners that the order passed by the Collector was without putting the petitioners to notice and therefore it was in violation of principles of natural justice and thirdly the proceedings which had been earlier finalized in the year 1981, the same has been completely ignored by the authorities below, hence the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
(3.) THE background in which the dispute arose is that the father of the petitioners under an order of the Consolidation Officer dated 25th July, 1966 claimed to have entered into as a tenure holder in the revenue records. It is alleged that on the basis of the orders of the Consolidation Authorities the predecessors in interest of the petitioners applied for mutation which was allowed on 5th November, 1981. Against the said order one Munni Devi is stated to have filed an appeal in which the respondent No. 5 was a party respondent. The said appeal, against the order dated 5.11.1981 was dismissed on 3rd April, 1991.;