Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) It appears that an order on the basis of a compromise was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 27.2.1973. Against that order two applications were filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. One application is dated 13.9.1982 for correction of the entries in CH. Form No. 45 and the other was an application dated 16.10.1985 for setting aside the order dated 27.2.1973 on the ground that there was no such compromise. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 2C.2.1986 dismissed the application for correction but allowed the other application and tie set aside the order dated 27.2.1973. Against the order dated 20.2.1986 allowing the application of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 dated 16.10.1985, the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 25.2.1987 exercising suo moto power set aside the order dated 27.2.1973 of the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the ground that it was a nullity. The reason given in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that before the order dared 27.2.1973 an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 12.2.1973 determining the share of the parties and that against the order dated 12.2.1973 an appeal was also filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer on 2.4.1973 and in view of the order dated 12.2.1973 there was no justification for the order dated 27.2.1973.
(2.) I have heard Sri M.N. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner am: Sri R.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
(3.) It was submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that there was no arch order of the Consolidation Officer dated 12.2.1973. In paragraph No. 18 of the writ petition it has been stated that the observation in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation about the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 12.2.1973 in case No. 1004 was factually incorrect and against the record inasmuch as neither the petitioner was a party in that case nor any such order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 12.2.1973 to the knowledge or notice of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed Annexure-CA-1, copy of the extract of khatauni 1378-1380 fasli which contains the Amaldaramad of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 12.2.1973 and of the appellate order dated 2.4.1973. However, copies of these orders have not been filed by the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the averments made in paragraph No. 7 of the rejoinder affidavit denying the averment of the petitioner having filed any appeal.;