Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Aditya Narain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Bhushan appearing for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
(2.) The facts of the case relevant for the purpose are as under: The dispute relates to khata No. 78 of village Vijai Giri. In the basic year name of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 Khelari and Manbodh father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 along with other members of the family were jointly recorded. During consolidation operation several objections were filed by different members of the family in respect of their rights in the khata in dispute. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 also filed objections claiming rights on the ground that they were purchaser of eight exclusive plots and l/12th share in 21 gatas from Khelari respondent No. 2. All the objections were consolidated. The Consolidation Officer vide common order dated 18.1.1969 decided all the objections. The share of the petitioner in khata in dispute was determined by the Consolidation Officer to be 1 /12th. The claim of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was rejected by him on the ground that they failed to prove the sale deed. Three appeals were filed against the judgment of the Consolidation Officer. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 also preferred an appeal which was numbered as Case No. 2123. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by common order dated 24.12.1979 decided all the appeals. There was no dispute regarding the share of the petitioner before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who dismissed all the appeals including one filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Again several revisions were filed. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 also filed revision which was numbered as Revision No. 1186 of 1971. Respondent No. 2 and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 entered into a compromise on the basis of which the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the said revision vide order dated 11.8.1971. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed a review application against the said order which was dismissed on 27.5.1972. Subsequently, Manbodh father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 moved an application for recalling the order dated 11.8.1971. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 3.4.1979 rejected the same on the ground that there was no sufficient reason for condonation of delay in filing the application. Thereafter, Manbodh filed review application seeking review of the order dated 3.4.1979. The Deputy Director of Consolidation consolidated the review application along with other pending revisions and vide order dated 16.3.1982 allowed the revisions as well as the review application and determined the share of the petitioner to be 1 /48th.
(3.) It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that once the recall application filed by Manbodh father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was dismissed on 3.4.1979 the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have allowed the application seeking review of the same as the consolidation authorities are not vested with any power of review. It has further been urged that the impugned order also amounts to review of his earlier order dated 11.8.1971 deciding the Revision No. 1186 of 1971 filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and order dated 27.5.1972 dismissing the review application filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as well for which he had no jurisdiction. It has next been contended that there was no challenge to the share of the petitioner determined by the Consolidation Officer and confirmed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly and illegally reduced it from l/48th to 1 /12th. It has next been submitted that the impugned order dated 16.3.1982 has been passed ex-parte without any notice to the petitioner.;