R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the contesting respondents No. 2 to 4.
(2.) 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 order dated 12.5.1983 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No.l, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda, allowing the revision of the contesting respondents.
(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that on enforcement of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act, the provisional consolidation scheme was published. The petitioners, who are real brothers, filed 4 objections under section 21(2) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer stating that there was no dispute amongst them inter se. It was, therefore, prayed that their chaks may be allotted at one place. Although, nobody has opposed the prayer of the petitioners but their objections were rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide his orders dated 31.12.1980 and 16.1.1981. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners filed 4 appeals before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which were separately numbered. The appeals were ultimately allowed vide order dated 1.5.1981 after hearing the parties and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh in the light of the observations made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in his order. On remand, the Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of the petitioners and allotted the chaks as prayed by them. The orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and me Consolidation Officer become final. In another objection filed by one Shri Sheo Narain, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.2.1982 slightly amended one of the chaks of the petitioners. The petitioners did not file any appeal against the said order but appeals were filed by the contesting respondents No. 2 to 4. The said appeal was dismissed for default on i.9.1982. The contesting respondents thereafter filed a restoration application. The Settlement Officer Consolidation after hearing the parties allowed the restoration application and restored the appeal to its original number and after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.1.1983. The contesting respondents thereafter filed a revision against the said order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 18.1.1983. The Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the entire case afresh and allowed the revision by his judgment and order dated 12.5.1983, hence the present petition.;