Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) Though the case has been taken up in the revised list but no one has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent.
(3.) Dispute relates to plot No. 58 area 0-3-9. In the basic year, the plot in dispute was recorded in the name of Mahadeo Prasad father of the petitioners. During consolidation operation, an objection was filed by respondent No. 2 under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') claiming that he was 'bhumidhar' of an area 0-3-0 of the land in dispute as it was his grove and after the date of vesting he has become 'bhumidhar'. The proceeding was contested by the father of the petitioner claiming that the plot in dispute ceased to grove and became an agricultural land and was in his possession and he was cultivating the same and as such he became hereditary tenant in view of section 206 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and after the date of vesting he has become 'sirdar'. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 4.5.1974 dismissed the objection filed by the contesting respondent. Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 8.9.1975. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 8.9.1975 allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.;