Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for contesting respondent.
(2.) With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(3.) The dispute relates to plot No. 114. During consolidation operation, an objection was filed by the petitioners with regard to correction of area of the plot in dispute, another objection was filed by respondent No. 4 claiming mutation of his name on the basis of the sale deeds dated 27.1.2000 and 23.8.2003. The objection filed by respondent No. 4 was contested by petitioner No. 2 on the ground that the said two sale deeds are forged and fabricated. The Consolidation Officer has framed as many as five issues. During the pendency of the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer an application dated 27.12.2005 was filed by the petitioners to decide some of the issues as preliminary issue which was rejected and the case was fixed on 3.1.2006 for cross-examination. The petitioners sought adjournment of the case on the ground that they had filed transfer application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was objected to by the contesting respondent. The Consolidate Officer vide order dated 4.1.2006 closed the evidence and cross-examination of the petitioners and allowed the objection filed b) the contesting respondent No. 4. The petitioners went up in appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioners wen delaying the proceedings and deliberately not producing evidence. The revision filed by the petitioners was also dismissed bi the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 7.7.2006 on the same ground.;