K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment of the revisional court dated 10-11-1980.
(2.) IT is not disputed that the disputed chak no. 362 of village Khandawali was recorded in the name of Sukhdev The petitioners applied for mutation of their names in place of the deceased Sukhdev before the Assistant Consolidation Officer who accepted the claim of the petitioners and deleted the name of the deceased Sukhdev and ordered for entry of the names of the petitioners through his order dated 23-11-1978. Against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer (contained in Annexure I attached to the writ petition), Smt. Kamlesh filed an appeal on the ground that she was daughter of the deceased Sukhdev and that the aforesaid deceased Sukhdev had executed a will in favour of appellant Smt. Kamlesh. The contesting opposite party Jitendra in the present writ petition is son of Mst. Kamlesh, and he was substituted during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that Mst. Kamlesh was not a party in the proceeding, hence she had not right to prefer the appeal as is evident from the judgment of the appellate authority dated 10-9-1980. Against the judgment of the appellate authority a revision petition was filed which was also dismissed by the revisional authority through its judgment dated 10-11-1980. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional authority the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends before me that the revisional authority has patently erred in observing that the order dated 23-12-1978 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer could not be binding upon the consolidation officer and would be treated as void. He has also emphasized that no objection was filed by Mst. Kamlesh or any body before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, hence the revisional authority acted illegally in proceeding on the assumption that some objection filed on behalf of Mst. Kamlesh is pending before the Consolidation Officer. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that the objection filed by her mother is pending before the consolidation officer and the revisional authority has rightly observed and has correctly indicated that the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 23-12-1978 would not bind the Consolidation Officer and will be treated as null and void.;