Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sankatha Rai learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sharad Malviya for the contesting respondents.
(2.) The petitioners claim to have purchased the land in dispute by means of registered sale deed. Mutation of their names on the basis of said sale deed was allowed by Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.9.1971 passed in case No. 6107. Certain objections were filed by the respondent No. 4 under section 9-A (2) of the Act claiming rights over the land in dispute without impleading the petitioners. The said objections were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 6.1.1973 against which she filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide ex-parte order dated 21.5.1973 allowed the same. When the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid order they filed an application to recall the same. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 7.2.1974 dismissed the application filed by the petitioners against which they preferred a revision which was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 7.9.1974.
(3.) The only ground on which the recall application of the petitioners was rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was they were not parties to the appeal. The Deputy Director of Consolidation upheld the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and dismissed the revision. Both the Courts below have lost right of the fact that the name of the petitioners came to be mutated by order dated 16.9.971 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer as such the petitioners were necessary parties and the proceedings without impleading them were not maintainable Since the rights of the petitioners were adversely affected they cannot be denied opportunity of hearing. The claim of the petitioners cannot be thrown out on the technical ground that since they were not arrayed as parties to the appeal the recall application filed by them was not maintainable. On the contrary the proceedings itself were not maintainable in the absence of the petitioners. The view taken by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation is erroneous and cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned judgment dated 21.5.1973 and 7.2.1974 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as 7.9.1974 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 67 are hereby quashed. The case is remanded back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation with the direction to decide the appeal afresh after impleading and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him by either of the parties. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.;