Lakshmi Prasad, J. - (1.) This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The dispute in the case relates to plot No. 181. Under Sec. 9 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act each of the Petitioner and opposite party No. 5 filed an objection claiming himself or herself to be the bhumidhar of the disputed plot. The Petitioner's objection was filed on 12 -1 -1963 whereas that of opposite party No. 5 on 14 -1 -1963. Both these objections were disposed of by a single order dated 27 -6 -1963 by the Consolidation Officer. He dismissed the objection of the Petitioner but allowed that of opposite party No. 5. The Petitioner went in appeal which was dismissed on 19 -9 -1963. He then instead of filing a second appeal preferred a revision purporting to be one Under Sec. 48 of the amended Act and the same was allowed on 14 -2 -1964 by a Deputy Director (Sri Vishnu Prakash). He remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with the direction to decide the whole dispute afresh by affording a chance to the parties to lead fresh evidence. The Consolidation Officer then proceeded to decide the case as directed in the order of remand. Parties led evidence before the Consolidation Officer subsequent to the order of remand. Then the Consolidation Officer decided the objection in favour of the Petitioner by his order, dated 16 -4 -1965. Opposite party No. 5 then preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 25 -8 -1965. She then went in revision. At the hearing of the revision it was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that in fact no revision was maintainable in so far as the unamended Act and not the amended Act applied. This argument raised on behalf of the Petitioner was countered by opposite party No. 5 by pointing out that on that parity of reasoning the order dated 14 -2 -1964 was itself void and a mere nullity in the eye of law, with the result that whatever was decided subsequent thereto in compliance therewith had to be ignored as a mere nullity. The Deputy Director, who disposed of the revision preferred by opposite party No. 5 by his order dated 7 -12 -1965, while upholding the contention of the Petitioner that the revision was not maintainable, accepted the argument raised on behalf of opposite party No. 5 and held that the order dated 14 -2 -1964 was a mere nullity and as such, whatever was done subsequent thereto, must stand quashed. It is in these circumstances that the present petition is filed with a prayer that the order dated 7 -12 -1965 passed by the Deputy Director be quashed.
(2.) The petition is opposed by opposite parties Nos. 5 to 8. It may here be mentioned that opposite party No. 5 claimed title by virtue of her purchase from opposite party No. 6 and opposite parties Nos. 7 and 8 asserted to have been in possession on behalf of opposite party No. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 5 to 8 it is alleged in paragraph 14 that Sri Vishnu Prakash Deputy Director, who passed the order dated 14 -2 -1964 remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer, was not empowered to hear and decide second appeals in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 11(2) of the unamended Act. It is further alleged in that paragraph that the question as to whether or not Sri Vishnu Prakash held the requisite authority for hearing and deciding second appeals came up for decision before this Court in writ petition No. 155 of 1963 Amarnath v/s. Sri Vishnu Prakash and Ors. and it was decided that he did not hold the requisite authority. This allegation in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit is not squarely denied in the rejoinder affidavit, as shall appear from paragraph 10 of the rejoinder affidavit in which allegations are made with reference to the allegations made in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit. Paragraph 10 of the rejoinder affidavit says: That the deponent is advised to state that the contents of para No. 15 of the counter -affidavit are not correct and the cases cited therein not applicable.
(3.) Certain other pleas have also been raised in the counter affidavit which it is unnecessary to take notice of, as shall appear from the following discussion.;