Lakshmi Prasad, J. - (1.) All these petitions Under Article 226 of the Constitution can be conveniently disposed of by a single judgment, since identical questions arise in all the three cases.
(2.) Salig Ram and Radha Krishna are the Petitioners in all the three cases. Kanthu is opposite party No. 5 in writ petition No. 668, Dalla is opposite party No. 5 in writ petition No. 669 and Mitan is opposite party No. 5 in writ petition No. 670 of 1966.
(3.) Opposite party No. 5 in each of the three cases preferred an objection Under Sec. 9 praying for the recording of his name over the disputed land after expunging the names of the Petitioners on the allegation that he was in fact the sirdar of the same. In each case the Petitioners contested the objection preferred by opposite party No. 5 and also filed an objection Under Sec. 9, since in the course of field to field partal the possession of opposite party No. 5 was found. These objections came to be decided against the Petitioners by the Consolidation Officer. The Petitioners preferred an appeal in each case but the same was dismissed. The Petitioners thin went in revision. The Dy. Director while disposing of the revisions held that he had no jurisdiction to reverse the findings of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and accordingly, he dismissed the revisions. It is in these circumstances that these petitions are filed with a prayer that the order passed in revision be quashed.;