S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners in the second writ petition and for some of the respondents in the first writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the first writ petition and for the respondent in the second writ petition is not present.
(2.) Both the parties have challenged the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C), Jhansi dated 4.2.1982, passed in the following five revisions:- Revision Nos. 278, 279, 280, 281 and 286.
(3.) D.D.C only noted the case and argument of the respective parties. D.D.C did not say a single word regarding his finding. D.D.C in the last paragraph of his judgment mentioned that after hearing the arguments and perusing the file he was convinced that entire evidence was available on the file and there was contradiction in the evidence and also some ambiguity in the evidence. Thereafter D.D.C noted that in his opinion, it was proper that parties appeared before C.O. again.;