Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Challenge in this petition has been made to the order dated 26.3.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners as not maintainable.
(3.) During chak allotment proceedings, father of petitioners Ram Nath was allotted chak No. 1085. Respondents No. 3 and 4 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation challenging the allotment made in favour of the father of the petitioners. During the pendency of the appeal he died. Petitioners were impleaded as his heirs and legal representative. Appeal came to be allowed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 2.3.2006 against which the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision on the ground that since the chak was not recorded in the name of petitioners as such the revision filed by them was not maintainable.;