Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) Facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under : During consolidation operation Jagannath and Sri Nath, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 4 to 6 filed an objection claiming to be declared as sole 'Bhumidhar' of the plots in dispute. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.11.1969 allowed the objection and declared them to be the sole 'Bhumidhar'. Petitioners sought review of the said order which was allowed by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 26.5.1970. Predecessor-in-interest of contesting respondents No. 4 to 6 filed an appeal which was allowed and order dated 26.9.1970 passed by Consolidation Officer on review application was set aside and earlier order dated 25.11.1969 was maintained. The appellate order was said to be incorporated in the final records prepared at the close of the consolidation operation. It is alleged that when petitioners came to know about said 'Amaldaramad' in the records they filed an application to recall appellate order dated 29.7.1971 on the ground that neither such appeal was ever filed not any such order was passed and said incorporation is forged and fabricated. Settlement Officer Consolidation finding that though appellate order dated 29.7.1971 was passed but the same was incorporated in revenue records on 21.3.1978 after seven years and the same also does not bear appeal number and original records are also not available, having been destroyed in fire which broke out in record room held, that incorporation of order passed by appellate authority is forged and fabricated and no such order was ever passed and allowed the recall application. Aggrieved by the same contesting respondents went up in revision. Revisional Court vide order dated 22.1.2002 allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court by filing instant writ petition.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for petitioners that real issue for determination before Deputy Director of Consolidation was as to whether appellate order dated 29.7.1971 which was incorporated in the revenue records, was actually passed or 'Amaldaramad' of said order was forged and fictitiously made in revenue records. He, however, without adverting himself to the said controversy illegally and wrongly proceeded to adjudicate the title of parties afresh on merits. It has further been urged that no opportunity of adducing any evidence was afforded to the petitioners before proceeding to decide the dispute on merits and the controversy has been decided only on the basis of written arguments submitted by contesting respondents without any opportunity of rebuttal. It has next been contended that without there being any evidence led by parties with regard to title, Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have adjudicated the same only on the basis of written arguments submitted by respondents without any opportunity of hearing to petitioners.;