Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Krishanji Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.M. Nazar Bokhari, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent.
(2.) Aggrieved by the order passed by e Consolidation Officer during chak allotment proceedings the petitioners preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 26.6.1973. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 4 preferred a revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 15.12.1982. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioners to recall the said order on the ground that no notice was ever served upon them and the said order was passed without any opportunity of hearing. It has been stated in the writ petition that on 9.3.1983 arguments were heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the restoration application and 6.4.1983 was fixed for argument of tire respondent. The application could not be heard on the said date and was adjourned to 15 4.1983 and thereafter to 27.4.1983. On the said date the petitioners were again heard on the restoration application and the case was fixed for 11.5.1983 for argument of the respondent. The matter was again adjourned on a number of dates and ultimately, the respondent was heard on the restoration application on 15.7.1983 and 17.8.1983 was fixed for orders. On the said date the parties were again heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation on the restoration application and 26.8.1983 was fixed for orders. The orders were not passed on the said date and the case was adjourned to 6.9.1983. No orders were passed on the restoration application and the case was being adjourned. Lastly, on 11.11.1983 it was adjourned to 22.11.1983. It has further been alleged that on 22.11.1983 when the petitioners made enquiry they came to know that orders have been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation of 11.11.1983 itself and 'he revision has again been decided on merits.
(3.) It has been urged that again no opportunity of advancing argument on merits was afforded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the petitioners were only heard on restoration application, yet orders have been passed on merits and the restoration application of the petitioners has been dismissed.;