Sudhir Narain , J. - (1.) Heard Sri D.P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for respondents No. 6 to 8. Sri Radhey Shyam made statement that he will not file any counter affidavit and the case may be disposed of on merits.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.8. 1995 passed by Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, allowing the review application and the order of the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1, dated 14.11.1996 dismissing the revision against the said order.
(3.) The facts, in brief, are that respondents No. 6 to 8 filed a suit under Section 229-B for declaration that they are Bhumidhar and grove holders of plot No. 768. The suit was contested by the petitioner. One of the issues was whether the suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The trial court recorded a finding vide dated 9.8.1994 that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the Act. Respondents filed appeal against the said order before respondent No. 2. The appeal was dismissed on 2.2.1996. Respondents filed an application for review pointing out that they had taken a ground that they were minors at the time of commencement of consolidation proceedings and no guardian having appointed for them, the suit could not be treated as barred under Section 49 of the Act. This review application has been allowed by respondent No. 2 on 8.8.1995. The petitioner filed revision against the said order and respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision on 14.11.1996.;