Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.R. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for respondents No. 3.
(2.) By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 17.2.1992 and 23.1.1992 passed by tire Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The Settlement Officer Consolidation while dismissing the appeal filed by Gaon Sabha as not maintainable made a reference to the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that Amalda-ramad made in favour of the petitioner in revenue record on the basis of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is forged and no such order was passed by the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has accepted reference.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the objection under section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the father and grand father of the petitioners who in the meantime have died. The impugned orders of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have been passed without any notice or knowledge to the petitioners and are against dead persons. It has categorically been stated in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the writ petition that the orders have been passed against dead person without any notice or knowledge to the heirs of the deceased.;