Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh learned Counsel for the petitioners. Though the case has been called out in the revised list but no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the dispute are as under: In the basic year, the petitioners were recorded as 'Bhumidhar over the land in dispute. During consolidation operation an objection under section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') was filed by the contesting respondents challenging the basic year entry on the ground that the same was incorrect and they have become 'Adhivasi' and thereafter 'sirdar and the names of the petitioners were liable to be expunged. Objection filed by the contesting respondents was contested by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the contesting respondents were ejected in a suit filed under section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the year 1956 and the said decree operates as resjudicata. Consolidation Officer held the ejectment decree passed in the suit under section 202 is binding and rejected the objection of the contesting respondents. They went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was allowed and it was held the ejectment decree passed in the suit under section 202 was not binding between the parties and the contesting respondents have acquired Sirdari rights. Revision filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was dismissed. Aggrieved, they have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed a manifest illegality in holding the decree as not binding on the ground that it was ex-parte and the restoration application to set aside the same was pending. It has further been urged that consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to declare the said decree as not binding on the ground that the notices were not sufficiently served.;