Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.K. Srivastava holding brief of Sri P.N. Kushwaha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Dhan Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.12.1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that they were only heard on restoration application and without affording any Opportunity of hearing the revision has been decided on merits.
(3.) The facts are that against the appellate order dated 26.1.1996 the petitioners filed a revision. The revision was heard on 12.9.1997 and the judgment was reserved. Thereafter, on oral request made on behalf of respondent No. 4, the Deputy Director of Consolidation directed spot inspection by a Advocate-Commissioner who submitted his report dated 3.10.1997. The parties were afforded opportunity to file objection to the said report and 15.10.1997 was fixed for judgment. The Deputy Director of Consolidation delivered the judgment on 15.10.1997. Thereafter, the contesting respondents moved an application dated 7.1.1998 to recall the order dated 15.10.1997 on the ground that it was an ex-parte order passed without any opportunity of hearing to them. Another application dated 19.3.1998 was also moved on behalf of State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha for recall of the order dated 15.10.1997. It has been alleged by the petitioners that no notice of the said restoration applications was ever issued to them and the same were being heard ex-parte and it was only by chance that on 2.12.1998 Counsel appearing for the petitioners happened to be in the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation when the hearing on the restoration application was going on. He made a request on behalf of the petitioners for an opportunity of hearing on the restoration application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation fixed 9.12.1998 and gave liberty to the petitioners to make arguments on the restoration application in the meantime. The order sheet dated 2.12.1998 filed as Annexure-17 to the writ petition, indicates that Counsel for the respondent No. 4 was heard on the restoration application and the case was fixed 9.12.1998 for delivery of orders and in the meantime, Counsel appearing for the petitioners was given liberty to submit his argument on the said application. It has further been alleged that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on merits of the case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order not only allowed the restoration application but also dismissed the revision as well.;