B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20 -3 -1975 (Annexure 3 to the petition). By this order the restoration application of Respondent No. 4 Ram Pati was allowed and the order dated 5 -4 -1973 by which the reference was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was recalled.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and they are these. In respect of Khata No. 12 there was a dispute about share between Respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7. In the basic year fcbata No. 12 was recorded in the name of Kuber and Jaganoo, sons of Bbaggoo, Dal Singar, Ramsingar and Ram Chandra, sons of Ghurahoo. Kuber has died and Ram Pati, Respondent No. 4 is his son. An objection under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act), was filed by Kuber alleging that the land was acquired by Bhagoo, the common ancestor of the parties, who has two wives, Smt. Sukhia and Smt. Chunnia. The latter was his first wife and Kuber and Purshottam were born from her, whereas from second wife Smt. Sukhia, Jagnu and Baiju were born. A complete pedegree has been given in para 3 of the petition. Bhaggoo, the common ancestor of the parties partitioned the property amongst his four sons during his life time. Smt. Sukhia has executed a gift deed in favour of Brij Bhushan, who acquired rights as donee, but the gift deed was denied by other co -sharers. The share of Dal Singar and Ram Chandra, sons of Qhurahoo was, however, not denied by any other co -sharer. The Consolidation Officer by the order dated 24 -1 -1972 has rejected the claim of Rampati, Respondent No. 4 and maintained the shares of Dal Singar, Ram Chandra and Ram Singar. Rampati, Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal which was dismissed by an order dated 11 -12 -1972. The revision before Respondent No. 1 and also Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7656 of 1974 against the order In Revision met the same fate. In this way it is clear that the original dispute between the parties became final by judgment of this Court in the writ petition.
(3.) A reference was sought on the basis of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 24 -1 -72 which became final in all respects. The Assistant Settlement Officer has proposed a reference to the Consolidation Officer, who In his turn proposed the reference to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who referred It to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for being accepted in view of the provisions of Section 48(3) of the Act. That reference was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 5 -4 -1973 and the 'adjustment chart as proposed was approved. Against the order dated 3 -4 -73 'accepting reference, Respondent No. 4 filed a restoration application alleging .that he was not served, nor he was heard and hence the order may be recalled and the reference may be decided afresh on merits. By the order dated 20 -3 -75, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the restoration application. This is the impugned order in the present petition.;