K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for questioning the judgment of the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur dated 11-1-1977, whereby the revision petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed.
(2.) On the death of Jamuna Misir the contesting opposite parties applied for being mutated under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the basis of their objections cases nos. 1348, 1385 and 1386 were registered and they were decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer through his order dated 5-1-1975. The petitioners had also allegedly hied applications under section 12 of the Act for being mutated in place of Jamuna Misir. According to the pedigree mentioned in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, the contesting opposite parties in the present writ petition are Jamuna Misir's father's brother's son and grandsons whereas the petitioners are daughter and son-in-law of the deceased Jamuna Misir. It appears that the applications under section 12 of the Act filed by the contesting opposite Parties were decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer through his order dated 6-1-1976, when the petitioners came to know about the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in favour of the contesting opposite parties they filed revision petitions with application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act which have been dismissed by the revisional court through the impugned judgment dated 11-1-1977. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the revisional court committed an error apparent on the face of the record in dismissing the revision petitions on the ground of limitation according to him when the revisional court had issued notice on the revision petitions it was obligatory on the part of the revisional court to decide the revision petitions on merits and could not dismiss the revision petitions on the ground of limitation. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in Abdul Zunaid v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1972 A.L.J. 435 and Ramakanl Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow, 1974 (Suppl.) R.D. 262. It has also been contended that in Parsidh Narain Rai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, 1980 R.D. 54 (Sum.) : 1979 A.L.J. 764. I did not notice paragraph 6 of the ruling reported in Ramakant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow with the result that i committed a mistake in expressing opinion about determination of the question of limitation by the revisional court in the facts and circumstances of that case.;