- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner feel aggrieved by an order, dated 31-8-95 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereunder a reference under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act made by the Consolidation Officer has been accepted and setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 23-6-95 and 31-1-84, the revenue records relating to the plots in dispute has been directed, to be corrected, expunging the entries in the names of the petitioners showing them to be the tenure-holders of the said plots. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to assail the impugned order on various grounds. However I am of the view that without going into the merits of various other submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition can be disposed of on a short ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order had been passed in a hurried manner without affording the petitioners any reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.
(3.) THE facts as they emerge from the material brought on record in respect whereof there is no dispute it is obvious that under the order passed by this Court, dated 23-8-95 disposing of finally the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21613 of 1995, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to pass a final order in the proceeding under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in question after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners making it clear that the petitioners will have the opportunity to raise the plea as to the binding efficacy of the judgment and orders previously passed in their favour and further requiring the Deputy Director of Consolidation to examine such pleas in accordance with law. This Court in its aforesaid order had further made it clear that if the orders relied upon by the petitioners in support of their claim were found to have been obtained fraudulently the Deputy Director of Consolidation would be well within his jurisdiction to ignore such orders. It appears that subsequent to the order of this Court, dated 23-8-95 notices were issued by the Consolidation Officer in C. H. Form 6-Ka intimating the petitioners separately that a case has been registered for determination of rights in and liabilities in respect of land, the partition of joint holdings and determination of value of plots, trees, wells and other improvements in which the addressee was asked to appear on 31-8-95 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad in the forenoon either in person or through an authorised agent making it clear that in the event of absence the dispute will be decided in his absence. The report of the process-server in respect of the notices issued by the Consolidation Officer which was submitted on 29-8-95 was to the effect that in the presence of witnesses mentioned in the report the process-server had visited the residences of the addressees who were not found present on the spot and, therefore, one summons was affixed on the door of their houses. In one of his report the process-server had reported that he was told that the noticee Raj Kishore had gone out and was not expected to return within 24 hours. In view of this information he had affixed the summons on the door of the house.;