S. R. Misra, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioners seek a relief for quashing the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia dated 24-11-1975 and the orders of the Settlement officer of Consolidation, and Consolidation Officer.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present petition, are that in the basic year plot nos. 133 and 135, which are subject matters of dispute situated in village Rekua Nasirpur, Pargana Sikandarpur Garbi, district Ballia, were entered in the name of the petitioners as Sirdars. Contesting respondent Jamuna and others filed an objection under Section 9 of U. P., Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming their exclusive possession since long over the disputed plots and other several plots but I am not concerned with those objections or dispute except the two plots referred to above. The petitioners contested the claim and objection of Jamuna and others that it was their exclusive sridari and there has already been a litigation between the petitioners and contesting respondents Jamuna and others and the petitioners instituted Suit No. 707 of 1964. The suit was decreed exparte on 28-6-1964. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 31-12-1965 directed for expunging the names of the petitioners from plot nos. 133 and 135. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, petitioners preferred an appeal which was numbered as 709 and the same was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 19-5-1966 and the petitioners were held to be sirdars. On revision filed by some strangers against the order of settlement Officer of Consolidation, Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and remanded (he case for a fresh decision. After the remand the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners on 10-9-1971 and ordered that the names of the petitioners by expunged The petitioners filed Revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act against the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which too was dismissed on 24-11-1975. Aggrieved by the orders, of the consolidation authorities petitioners have approched this Court under Article 226 of the Constitutions I have heard Sri R. S. Dwivedi, who has urged before me that there was a final litigation between the petitioners and Jamuna and others and successive restoration applications were filed against the . exparte decree in favour of the petitioners dated 28-6-1964. ft is submitted that no objection or restoration was filed by Gaon Sabha nor any objection was filed by the Gaon Sabha in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. First restoration application filed byJamuna was dismissed in default on 30-9-1965 and second restoration was dismissed on 3-3-1967. and the third on 18 5-1967 A fourth application was filed which was allowed on 1-9-1967. Against this order petitioners filed a Revision and the Additional Commissioner made a recommendation to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order dated 1-9-1967 and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 19-10-1969 allowed the revision, set aside the order of the trial court restoring the suit and setting aside the decree vide its order dated 1-9-1967. In view of the final decision between petitioners and respondents once the decree became final, the question of granting any relief or rejecting the claim of the petitioners at the instance of Jamuna and others, the contesting respondents, who were parties to a suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act having been finalised, no relief could be granted to the respondents in 'consolidation proceedings.
(3.) IT has also come in the pleadings of the parties that Jamuna and others were also setting up the claim for the Gaon Sabha but admittedly, at no stage has come forward to deny or dispute the rights of the petitioners. According to the petitioners once that order under Section 229-B attained finality no other materials was to be considered and on the strength of that decree the petitioners were entitled to succeed and the orders of the consolidation authorities for expunging the names of the petitioners over the two plots, are arronous on the face of it. IT has also been urged that a perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation would go to show that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has carved out a new case for which there was no material and no occasion arose for carving out such a case. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has completely ignored the effect of the final decree. IT may be an exparte decree but once it has attained finality, the respondents are debarred from agitating the same matter in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act and the observations of the Deputy Director of Consolidation on merit about possession and title of the parties was neither permissible under the law nor it was the case of Jamuna Prasad and others that after the decree dated 28-6-1964 they have acquired fresh rights. The observations of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that at one place in the judgment of the Board of Revenue instead of 28-6-1964-14-8.1964 has been written and on account of this typing error or accidental mistake incorporating a wrong date without ascertaining it as a question of fact, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken the view that there appears to be two decrees and on that ground he has totally ignored the finality of the decision Inter parties in proceedings under Section 229-B. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Thakur Prasad Dubey as Pairokar of the opposite-party No. 4 In para 11 he has stated that the village was notified on 31-10-1964 and the suit under Section 229-B which was restored on 1-9-1967 shall be deemed to have abated and neither an appeal or revision lays against the order of the trial court restoring the exparte decree on 1-9-1967 and the Additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass an order as the suit automatically abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. In this paragraph a conspiracy has been alleged between the pradhan and the petitioners.;