Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Radhey Shayam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri L.K. Tripathi appearing for contesting respondent No. 2.
(2.) The dispute relates to plot No. 1527. Upon publication of notification under section 9 of U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act I (for short the Act), various objections were filed claiming rights in the disputed plot Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.1.1975 deciding the objections two appeals were filed. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed both the appeals and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision, After remand of the case the Consolidation Officer again decided the objections vide order dated 28.9.1991. 'Amaldaramad' of the said order was made in the record on 31.12.1993 and map was also corrected accordingly. Again two appeals were filed by respondent No. 2, one appeal was directed against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 28.9.1991 and the other was directed against the order of Amaldaramad' dated 31.12.1S93. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed both the appeals on 29.5.1995. Respondent No. 2 challenged the appellate orders in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 10.5.2001 partly allowed the revision by modifying the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 29.5.1995. He, however, set aside the order of Amaldaramad' dated 31.12.1993 and directed that the record may be corrected and the map be prepared in accordance with the spot situation. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 moved an application pointing out some typographical error in the judgment and to make necessary correction in the map accordingly. The Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order dated 18.5.2001 on the margin to put up the application along with the record. He again passed an order on 19.5.2001 on the margin of the said application to the effect that plot No. 1549 area 2-1-0 has been left out to be recorded in the name of respondent No. 2 by mistake and the same be corrected. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on the same date passed another detail order making charges in the sub-division of the plots.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that both the orders dated 19.5.2001, one passed on the margin of the application and the other detail order are ex parte passed behind the back of the petitioners without any notice or opportunity. Even the copy of the application was not served upon the petitioners. It has, further, been urged that order dated 19.5.2001 amounts to review of the earlier order dated 10.5.2001 for which respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction.;