- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard Ms. Dey, learned Advocate, who appeared for the petitioner and Sri C. K. Rai, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents.
(2.) MATTER has again been taken up on the recall application filed by the respondent side. Writ petition was decided by this Court by judgment dated 22. 1. 1981 by which matter was remitted to the Revisional Court for being decided afresh. Application is moved on the ground that respondent had no notice and there was no representation of the respondent when the writ petition was decided. In view of the aforesaid, this Court permitted both sides to argue on the merits of the writ petition by accepting the grievance of the respondent to be corrected. Accordingly after allowing the recall application as jointly submitted, requested the writ petition was heard and is being decided. Writ petition is of the year 1973 and it was decided in the year 1981 and after disposal of the recall application writ petition is being heard and decided today. For disposal of the writ petition facts in brief will suffice.
(3.) BASIC year record, records the name of both sides. Objections came to be filed from both sides by which both sides claimed to be the sole owner of the property. Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of the respondents and thus declared him to be the sole owner. On appeal filed by the petitioner basic year entry was directed to be maintained and thus both remain recorded as co-tenant. On filing revision again the respondent succeeded and thus declared to be the sole owner of the property upon which this writ petition, by the petitioner. When the matter was earlier decided a consideration was there that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not touched the question of possession and at the same time rights of the petitioner on the basis of the deeds in his-favour.;