Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) In the basic year Hari Charan, father of the petitioners was the recorded tenure holder. On 4.4.1978 objections under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the petitioners. They were belated and an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. The petitioner case was that the land in question was 'sir' and the petitioners having been born before the commencement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act had a share by birth. The objections were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 26.4.1979. Against that order a revision was filed by the petitioners which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 19.6.1979 on the basis of a compromise wherein the petitioners were admitted to be having a one third share each.
(2.) During the pendency of the objections under section 9 of the Act, a sale deed dated 27.8.1978 is said to have been executed by Hari Charan in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. According to the petitioners, the sale deed was not executed by Hari Charan but by some impostor. The Consolidation Officer, however, by order dated 19.4.1982 allowed the mutation application of respondents No. 3 and 4. The order was challenged by the petitioners in appeal. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by an order dated 18.12.1982 allowed the appeal on the ground that by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.6.1979 the petitioners had cotenancy rights and Hari Charan, father of the petitioners had no right to execute the sale deed. The order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was challenged by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also filed an application for setting aside the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.6.1979 passed on the basis of the compromise. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his impugned order dated 21.6.1983 has allowed the restoration application of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and has also set aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and restored that of the Consolidation Officer allowing the mutation of the names of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioners have challenged this order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) I have heard Sri L.N. Pandey, Counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.C. Tiwari Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.;