Krishna Murari - (1.) -By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 19.1.1971, 21.8.1971 and 19.3.1973 passed by Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively in proceedings under Section 9A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act').
(2.) THE facts are as under : In respect of plots in dispute respondents No. 4 to 12 filed Suit No. 222 of 1966 under Section 229B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against petitioners seeking declaration that they are sole tenants of the plots in dispute. Trial court vide judgment and decree dated 27.6.1966 dismissed the same. First appeal filed by them also came to be dismissed on 27.1.1967. THEy went up in second appeal before the Board of Revenue. During the pendency of the second appeal the village was notified for consolidation operation vide notification dated 6.6.1970. THE respondents filed objection under Section 9A (2) of the Act before Consolidation Officer. In the meantime second appeal pending before the Board of Revenue was dismissed in default on 26.10.1971 but was subsequently restored. It was again dismissed in default on 25.9.1972. Restoration application moved by the contesting respondents was dismissed on 30.4.1973. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 19.1.1971, allowed the objections filed by the contesting respondents. Appeal and revision filed by the petitioners were also dismissed. Aggrieved they have approached this Court. I have heard Sri S. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I. N. Singh for the contesting respondents. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
(3.) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on dismissal of second appeal the decree passed by the revenue courts became final and operated as res judicata and all the three consolidation authorities have erred in law in not treating the decree to be final on the ground that since recall application was pending hence the proceeding shall be deemed to be pending before the Board of Revenue and shall be deemed to have abated. In reply, it has been submitted that since on the date of notification the second appeal was pending as such it shall be deemed to have abated on issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and further during the pendency of proceedings before consolidation authorities the recall application was pending as such the matter was still sub-judice, and the proceedings of second appeal alongwith suit stood automatically abated by operation of law and the consolidation authorities have rightly not treated the decree to have become final.;