S.R.Misra - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioners seek a relief of quashing the judgment and orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities dated 24-2-1975, 31-12-1975 and 31-7-1981. The brief facts given rise to this writ petition are as follows :- The petitioners were recorded over the plots of Khata No. 72 situated in village Chakrawa Dhus, Tappa Kachuwar, Paragana Salempur Majhauli, Tahsil and District Deoria. Against the said entry the opposite party Surendra and others filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (from hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). According to the contesting respondents, plots in dispute were the Sir plots pertaining to Khewat No. 2. Sadanand and Mahanand were the real brothers and they were the Khewat holders. Brinda is the grand son of Mahanand and Muse, Jammuna and Sarvjeet are the sons of Sadanand. The opposite parties had 2/3 shares and Mahanand's branch had 1/3 shares. Brinda is said to have executed a sale deed 9-1-1961 in favour of the petitioners after depositing ten times rent. Opposite parties filed suit, being suit no- 369 of 1958 and the said suit was dismissed, Dismissal was maintained in the appeal and in second appeal the High Court has set aside the judgments of the courts below by its order dated 19-1-1971 and decreed the plaintiff's suit. Petitioners filed a special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court dated 19-1-1971. Special leave was granted by the Supreme Court which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. During the pendency of the special leave before the Supreme Court, the village was notified under section 4 (2) of the. Act Consolidation Officer placing refiance on the' judgment of this Court dated 19-1-1971 passed an order -expunging the name of the petitioners as he; treated the decree of the second appeal of this Court as final. Against the said order petitioners filed appeal and thereafter revision but the appeal and revision both were dismissed.
(2.) INSPITE of the fact that registered notices were sent as well as the notices were also published in the newspaper, the contesting respondents neither appeared nor filed their counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Faujdar Rai has mainly argued that an apparent error has been committed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 in treating the judgment of this Court dated 19-1-1971 as final and as against this order a special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court and Special Leave was granted, thereafter during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition; if the village was brought under the consolidation operation on account of the notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act, it is a case where no finality can be attached to the orders passed by this Court and in law the whole suit along with appeal will be deemed to have been abated. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials on record, I am satisfied that an apparent error has been committed by the Consolidation Authorities in treating the judgment of this Court dated 19-1-1971 as final, and deciding the rights and interest of the parties in respect of the plots in dispute. At any point of time, once a Special Leave Petition was filed and during the pendency of the said Special Leave Petition if the village was brought under consolidation operation and a notification under section 4 (2) of the Act was issued, the whole proceedings along with the said suit will be deemed to have been abated and no finality can be attached, and, the matter should be examined by the Consolidation Authorities on the materials adduced before them. Since all the three authorities, in their judgments have placed reliance, treating the judgment of this Court dated 19-1-1971 as final, without going into the merits, of the case, their judgments are liable to be set aside.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders and judgments of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 are quashed and the Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the dispute between the parties on merits in accordance with law. Since it is an old matter, the Consolidation Officer is further directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. Petition allowed.;