B.Diksshit, J. - (1.) By this writ petition the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh has been challenged whereby he has dismissed the revision of the petitioners. The revision was against the order passed under Section 5 of the Limitation, Act condoning the delay on objection filed under Section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by Consolidation Officer. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties.
(2.) Since disposal of stay application is likely to take as much time in which writ petition itself can be decided, therefore, the writ petition is being heard on merits.
(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is that the revision has been dismissed. The application has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer, according to him without hearing the petitioners. The petitioners' grievance before the Revisional Authority was that the order has been passed without hearing the petitioners. Even in paragraph 5 of this writ petition the petitioners have specifically averred that no notice was served on them. The service of notice on petitioners is by affixing notice at the door of the petitioners in presence of Achcne Lal Yadav and Sitaram Yadav. It it further stared in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the service report has been written and supplied only by one person and no address of the witnesses has been given.;