K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioners claim Sirdari right in the disputed land. Their claim has been contested by Gaon Sabha, opposite party No. 4. All the consolidation authorities have given judgments against the petitioners. Aggrieved by their judgments the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the appellate authority and the revisional Court have patently erred in ignoring the ex parte decree in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party Gaon Sabha has submitted that the ex parte decree in favour of the petitioners is really a collusive decree and was rightly ignored by the higher consolidation authorities. In this connection the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has invited my attention to the allegations contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit.
(3.) I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, and I have gone through the judgments of the consolidation authorities. In my opinion the appellate authority and the revisional Court have patently erred in ignoring the ex parte decree in favour of the petitioners. The reasons given by them are faulty, hence their conclusions deserve to be quashed.;