B.L.Yadav, J. - (1.) THE present petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders dated 15.05.1974 and dated 21.03.1975 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi Under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act).
(2.) THE facts are few and simple. Over Khata No. 473 in the basic year the Petitioner and Lagan, father of Respondent No. 4 Sheonath were recorded as sirdars. The Petitioner filed an objection Under Section 9A(2) of the Act claiming sole sirdari rights as the plots were acquired by her husband alone and the entry in the name of Lagan was incorrect and the same may be expunged . On the other hand, it was alleged by Respondent No. 4, that Lagan was the sole -tenant and after the death of Ramdeo, husband of Smt. Sukali, the Petitioner, she remarried and lost her rights. In any case he claimed to be entitled to 2/3rd share as Deena died after the death of Ramdeo and his l/3rd share came to Lagan, the father of Respondent No. 4, and hence he became entitled to 2/3rd share whereas the Petitioner in the alternative was entitled to l/3rd share only. The Consolidation Officer held the Petitioner to be entitled to 1/2 share and Respondent No. 4 would be entitled to the remaining 1/2 share. Both the parties preferred appeals which were dismissed. Thereafter both the parties preferred revisions. The Petitioner's revision (Revision No. 1941: Smt. Sukali v. Sheonath) was decided ex -parte inasmuch as the Petitioner's counsel prayed that on account of unavoidable difficulties he was unable to argue the case on the date fixed, hence another date may be fixed but that application was rejected and thereafter the revision was decided ex -parte and was dismissed by order dated 15.05.1974. The Petitioner preferred restoration application which was taken for hearing alongwith Revision No. 2735 (Sheonath v. Smt. Sukali). The Petitioner's restoration application was also dismissed holding that no sufficient ground was made out to restore the revision. Whereas the revision of Respondent No. 4 was decided on merits and allowed on 21 -3 -1975 and it was held that the Petitioner was entitled to l/3rd share and Respondent No. 4 was entitled to 2/3 rd share.
(3.) IT has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the application moved by the counsel for the Petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for adjournment was dismissed, but no reasons were assigned as to why the Petitioner's counsel could not be accommodated for some other date. Nothing was said that on some previous date also the Petitioner or her counsel adopted some delaying tactics. Hence in all probabilities the application moved by the Petitioner's counsel must have been allowed.;