S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and that of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 20.1.2003 and 16.8.1999 respectively by which appeal and revision arising out of proceedings under section 9-A (2) of U.P. C.H. Act has been decided.
(2.) For disposal of the matter, it is clear that the facts in detail may not be required and brief narration may suffice.
(3.) At the start of consolidation proceedings, three set of claims came before Consolidation Officer about the property in dispute. Claim of parties can be ascertained from the judgment of Consolidation Courts. It appears that before the Consolidation Officer the opposite party could not appear and thus no evidence from their side could come on record. The Consolidation Officer considering the evidence which was given by the petitioners accepted their claim. The opposite parties Haridwar and others aggrieved from the judgment of Consolidation Officer filed appeal. Before the Appellate Court, the main ground which was taken by appellants appears to be that the judgment of the Consolidation Officer is ex parte and they were deprived of leading evidence and opportunity of hearing. Be as it may Settlement Officer Consolidation considered the matter on merits and allowed the appeal, upon which the petitioners filed revision which has been dismissed.;