Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) Challenge in this petition has been made to the order dated 16.3.1974. passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners as not maintainable.
(3.) Relevant facts for the purposes of the case, in short, are as under: In the basic year, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of petitioners. During consolidation operation, an objection was filed by contesting respondents claiming sole Bhumidhari rights denying the right and title of the petitioners. It is alleged that on account of illness, Pairokar of the petitioners reached the Court of Consolidation Officer, on the date fixed, a little late and in the meantime it was decided ex parte vide order dated 18.5.1971. Restoration application duly supported with affidavit was filed on the same day on behalf of the petitioners which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 22.10.1971. Respondents challenged the said order in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 24.1.1972 and the case was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for reconsidering the restoration application. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 18.11.1973 rejected the restoration application of the petitioner which was challenged in appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.5.1973. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 16.3.1974 dismissed the revision on the ground that since the petitioners did not file restoration application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation as such the same was not maintainable.;