- (1.) THIS matter is of the year 2002. Heard Shri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Ms. Saima Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.6 and 7/1 to 7/6 and no one else appeared to oppose the present writ petition. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.11.2002, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda, by which the petitioners' Revision No.294/1531 (Ashiq Ali & others vs. Ajeez Ahmad & others), under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, has been dismissed as abated.
(2.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda in his order dated 28.11.2002 observed that this revision is liable to be abated against the dead persons, but the operative portion of the order indicates that the entire revision has been dismissed as abated. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a title dispute arose between the petitioners and the private opposite parties, in which the petitioners claim co -tenancy rights. The petitioners filed objections and the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 31.03.1969 allowed the objections of the petitioners holding the petitioners as co -tenants. The private opposite parties preferred appeal against the said order, which was allowed by means of order dated 10.04.1970 and the order of Consolidation Officer dated 31.03.1969 was set aside. The petitioners feeling aggrieved against the appellate order, preferred revision, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer, Gonda. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the wrong date had been noted down by the petitioners, therefore, they could not attend the proceedings on the date fixed, because of which, the objection of the petitioners was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.03.1980 for want of prosecution. However, the petitioners filed application for recall of order dated 13.03.1980 along with an application for condonation of delay before the Consolidation Officer on 29.04.1980, but the Consolidation Officer dismissed the restoration application vide order dated 29.06.1981. The petitioners feeling aggrieved against the said order, preferred Revision No.294/1531 on 31.07.1981. The revision of the petitioners was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29.11.1985. The petitioners moved an application for restoration on 27.12.1985 i.e. within time, which was also dismissed on 10.05.1999 for want of prosecution. Subsequently, vide order dated 01.05.2002 the restoration application of the petitioners was allowed and the revision of the petitioners was restored to its original number. In the meantime, Lal Mohd, revisionist no.6, died and no substitution application was moved because his heir Chhedi was already on record as revisionist no.7. The revisionist no.7, Chhedi died on 29.11.1999, therefore, an application for substitution was moved on 03.06.2002 immediately after restoration of the revision and the said application was undisposed of till the passing of the impugned order. The revisionist no.13, Abdul Kayum died on 16.10.2002 and application for substitution of Shri Nazaf Ali was moved on 29.10.2002 by the uncle and heir and legal representative of the deceased and during pendency of the said application Nazaf Ali died on 03.11.2002, therefore, amendment application was moved for substituting the heirs and legal representatives of Nazaf Ali.
(3.) FURTHER submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that during pendency of the aforesaid three applications, namely, application dated 03.06.2002 for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of Chhedi, revisionist No.7, application dated 29.10.2002 for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of Abdul Kayum, revisionist no.13 and on the death of Nazaf Ali, heir and legal representatives of Abdul Kayum, amendment application was moved on 12.11.2002 for substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Nazaf Ali. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 28.11.2002 giving history of dismissal of the revision and therefore restoration of the same on various occasions without passing any order on the said three applications, dismissed the revision against the heirs and legal representatives of the revisionists no.7 and 13 thereby observing that revision is liable to be dismissed against the dead persons, but in the operative portion of the order it has been mentioned that entire revision has been dismissed as abated and the case was consigned to record. In this background, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entire revision should not have been dismissed and the same could have been dismissed only against the dead persons/ revisionists.;