S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) By means of this writ petition petitioners, have challenged the judgment and order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.11.1996 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) by which the revision filed by the respondents had been allowed and the order dated 16.5.1995 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation has been set aside.
(3.) There appears to be no dispute' about various factual aspects, thus brief narration will suffice. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of the respondent No. 2 but on the basis of some reconciliation which is said to have been arrived, the name of respondent No. 3 who happens to be the son-in-law of respondent No. 2 came to be recorded by the order dated 8.10.1986. Against tire aforesaid order/entry in favour of respondent No. 3, an appeal was filed by the respondent No. 2 himself on the ground that no reconciliation has been arrived at. Tire Settlement Officer Consolidation disposed of the appeal by order dated 1.1.1991 by which the order passed on the reconciliation was set aside. It is thereafter the respondent No. 2 applied for permission to sell the land, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by the order dated 30.1. 1991 . Pursuant to the permission so granted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, land has been transferred in. favour of the petitioners by means of the registered sale deed dated 19.2.1991. Petitioner claim that pursuant to the registered sale deed they came in possession over the land. At this stage a restoration application was filed by the respondent No. 2 against the order dated 1.1.1991 although he cannot be said to be aggrieved against the order dated 1.1.1991 as by the said order his appeal stood allowed. The restoration application filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 2.4.1991. It is thereafter petitioners appear to have filed a restoration application against the order dated 2.4.1991, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 16.5.1995 and a date has been fixed for hearing. Against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 16.5.1995 revision has been filed by the respondent which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 21.11.1996 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) which is under challenge before this Court.;