Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Swaraj Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
(2.) Though the case has been taken up in the revised list, no one has appeared on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.
(3.) The undisputed facts are that a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Z. A. & L. R. Act was filed by the petitioners no. 2 and 3 in 1975 impleading the petitioner no. 1, 4 and Gaon Sabha. The suit was decreed on 28.6.1975 on the basis of compromise between the parties. The khata was partitioned accordingly and the decree was given effect to in the revenue records as well. When the consolidation operation started, there was no dispute with regard to basic year entries. However at a later stage of consolidation proceedings some letter dated 8.10.1986 was written by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna to the Settlement Officer Consolidation that plots in dispute are not recorded in the name of petitioners in 'Namantran Bahi' and therefore their names should be expunged. On the basis of the said letter Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation wrote letter no. 963 CC dated 16.3.1989 on the basis of which Consolidation Lekhpal prepared a reference dated 27.5.1989 which was forwarded to the Consolidation Officer by the Assistant Consolidation Officer along with his report on 9.6.1989. The Consolidation Officer in his turn forwarded the same to the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 1.7.1991. He also submitted a report that reference be accepted. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation forwarded the reference to Deputy Director of Consolidation. Notices were issued, the petitioner contested the proceedings. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 13.9.1989 relying upon the reports that there is no entry of the decree passed in case no. 375 of 1975 in 'Namantran Bahi' as such the alleged decree and the consequential 'Amaldaramad' in revenue record on the basis of the said decree are forged accepted the reference. The certified copy of 'Namantran Bahi' produced by the petitioners, which went to show that details of decree passed in case no. 375 of 1975 was recorded therein was disbelieved by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;