Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.K. Singh for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Although none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition yet the matter has been heard and being decided finally. In case, respondent No. 4 feels aggrieved by the order, it is open for him to apply for recall of the same. Facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioners purchased some land by means of a registered sale -deed dated 20.4.1979 from the Dalsingar, the recorded tenure -holder. They applied for mutation but the mutation application was rejected.
(2.) On the start of the consolidation operations, the petitioners filed an objection under Sec. 9 whereon an order was passed on 27.7.1988 directing that the name of the petitioners be recorded over the land purchased by them. The petitioners thereafter are alleged to have discovered that there was an amaldaramad in favour of the respondents of an order dated 11.6.1985 regarding the same land. However, it is alleged that no record of the case wherein such order was passed, is available.
(3.) On discovery of this discrepancy, two separate reports by the Consolidation Officer were made to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.;