Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shyam Krishna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Rahul Sahai appearing for the contesting respondents.
(2.) With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(3.) The facts are that Khata No. 1175-A was recorded in the name of Shiv Nath son of Hardwar and Dharm Dev son of Bramhdev. During consolidation operations, the Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 5.1.1988 in case No. 4106 on the basis of compromise entered between the parties and directed the name of petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 to be recorded as co-tenure holder. The name of Shiv Nath was also corrected as Shivji. Subsequently, a time bared objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act was filed by the contesting respondents claiming to be bhumidhar in possession of the disputed Khata and to expunge the name of the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.1.1996 dismissed the objection filed by the respondents against which an appeal was filed. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 16.8.2003 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer with a direction to consider the question of limitation and thereafter proceed to decide the case on merits. The appellate order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 8.2.2006 dismissed the revision,.;