Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri V.S. Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Devendra Dahma, Advocate appearing for the respondent no.4 and 5.
(2.) This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. The objections filed by the tenure holders including that of the petitioners against the proposed allotment were consolidated and decided by the Consolidation Officer by a common judgment dated 25.3.1983. The petitioners along with the respondents no. 10 who happens to be their brother and respondent, Phool Singh and Nakli etc. filed appeal. During the pendency of the appeal respondent no.10 entered into a compromise with Nakali etc on the basis of which the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and other appeal of Phool Singh and Nakali etc was consolidated and was allowed. The petitioners filed a revision alleging that they had never signed the compromise or gave any authority to their brother, Bhopal Singh to enter into any compromise on their behalf as such it is not binding on them. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 14.2.1984 dismissed the revision.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners has not been considered either by the Settlement Officer Consolidation or by Deputy Director of Consolidation on merits. The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed their appeal on the basis of illegal compromise. Before Deputy Director of Consolidation, on the date fixed, an adjournment was sought on account of non -availability of the counsel which was refused and the revision was dismissed without any opportunity of hearing.;