B.D.Gupta, J. - (1.) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the decision of certain objections filed by the petitioners under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Objections were allowed by the Consolidation Officer but, on appeal by the other side, the appeal was allowed' and the objections were dismissed. Thereafter the petitioners filed a revision which was also dismissed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. The petitioners then filed this petition in this court.
(2.) At the hearing of this petition learned counsel for the opposite party Jaskaran Singh raised the preliminary objection that this petition has become infructuous and should, therefore, be dismissed without going into its merits. This preliminary objection is founded on the assertion contained in para 6 of the counter affidavit which runs as follows:- "That as against the land in dispute a chak has been proposed in favour of the deponent, petitioners preferred no objection and the chak was confirmed in favour of the deponent who has also entered into possession over the same for the last about one year." In answer to the aforesaid averment the petitioner, in paragraph 3 of the rejoinder affidavit, has stated merely that proceedings taken during the pendency of the writ petition have no probative force for the purpose of this writ petition and the allegations in para 6 of the counter affidavit are irrelevant. The assertion of fact, made by the opposite party that consequent upon the proposals for the formation of a chak the petitioners preferred no objections with the result that the chak was confirmed in favour of the opposite party who had also entered into possession, has not been denied. Learned counsel for the opposite party has relied upon two Division Bench decisions of this Court. The first is a decision to which was a party in the case of Atar Singh v. Dhoop Singh and others, 1963 RD 312 . The second is a decision of another Division Bench in the case of Raghunandan and others v. The Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, 1966 RD 251 . A reading of these decisions make it perfectly clear that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party is well sustained and must be given effect to. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the aforesaid decisions did not lay down the law correctly. Apart from the fact that I am myself a party to the earlier of the aforesaid decisions I see no reason to doubt the correctness, of the decisions but am, on the other hand, bound by them.
(3.) The result, therefore, is that this petition is dismissed as infructuous but, in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to the costs of this petition.;