K.N.Misra, J. - (1.) Petitioners Ramjas and 7 others filed this writ petition against the order dated 29th March, 1971 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revision arising out of proceedings under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the basic year Khatauni the names of the petitioners as well as the opposite party no. 2 Ram Dular were recorded as co-tenure-holders on khata no. 5 comprising plot nos. 97, 98, 122, 123, 124 and 125 with total area of 1.77 acres. In C.H. Form no. 5 the share of the petitioners was shown to be 1/2 and the other half share was shown to be belonging to opposite party no. 2 Ram Dular. Petitioners filed objection claiming all the plots except plot no 98 of the disputed holding exclusively belonging to them and that the opposite party no. 2 Ram Dular has got 1/2 share only in plot no. 98. Ram Dular contested the case asserting that he has 1/2 share in the entire holding in dispute and his name was rightly mutated. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection filed by the petitioner vide order dated 30th March, 1968 and held that the opposite party no. 2 Ram Dular was entitled to 1/2 share in all the plots in disputed holding. Against the said order the petitioners had preferred an appeal which was allowed on 14.5.70 and it was held that the opposite party no. 2 is entitled to 1/2 share only in plot no. 98 and not in other plots of the disputed holding. Against the said order the opposite party no. 2, Ram Dular preferred revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 29.3.71 and he set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and maintained the order passed by the Consolidation Officer holding that the opposite party no. 2 was entitled to 1/2 share on all the plots of the disputed holding. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed present writ petition in this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner no. 4, Dwarika is said to have died on 10th May, 1973 but no steps were taken for impleading his legal heirs and representatives. The writ petition, therefore, abated so far as petitioner no. 4 was concerned with the result the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation became final so far as petitioner no. 4 was concerned.
(3.) Learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties contended that since the writ petition has abated against the petitioner no. 4 as his legal heirs and representatives were not brought on record and as such the entire writ petition deserves to be dismissed, having abated as a whole because in the event the writ petition succeeds there would be two inconsistent orders relating to the same land in which all the petitioners were claiming joint interest as co-tenure holders the exclusion of the contesting opposite party, except plot no. 98. I have perused the impugned orders as well as the averments contained in the writ petition and I find substance in this contention.;