- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. C. Verma appearing for respondents No. 4,5 and 6.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 29th August, 1981 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 30th December, 1980 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. In consolidation proceedings the father of the petitioners Khudabux was abetted Chak No. 175. Respondent No. 3, Baba Din (now represented by his legal heirs) was allotted Chak No. 643. The father of the petitioner was allotted Chak on Plots No. 3521, 3516 and 3322. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23rd February, 1977 amended the chak of the petitioners by which petitioner's father was alloted seven biswa area of Plot No. 4061. An appeal was filed by respondent No. 3 against the said order of Consolidation Officer before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 2nd August, 1978 praying that petitioners' father be given chak on his original holding and his chak, which is between his chak and chak of his co-tenant holder be removed. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeal by order dated 30th December, 1980. Against the dismissal of appeal, respondent No. 3 filed a revision being Revision No. 15 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 29th August, 1981 allowed the revision, affecting the Chak Nos. 643, 175 and 1210. Against the order dated 29th August, 1981, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation were passed without giving any notice and opportunity to the petitioners. Petitioners' case is that petitioners' father, Khudabux, died more than 14 years ago (in the year 1981) and respondent No. 3 impleaded Khudabux as respondent No. 2 in his appeal, who was already dead. Petitioners' case further is that before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioners were not impleaded and without hearing the petitioners the revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by heir of respondent No. 3, who has been impleaded in place of respondent No. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by son of respondent No. 3. The son of respondent No. 3 executed a sale deed of Plot No. 4061 in favour of respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 on 14th June, 1985 and 15th July, 1985. A counter affidavit has also been filed by respondents No. 4, 5 and 6. Respondents No. 7 and 8 have not appeared despite issue of notice. The respondents' case in the writ petition is that petitioners were well aware of the proceedings and have participated before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation and on this ground alone they are not entitled for any indulgence from this Court. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 was original tenure holder of Plot No. 4061 and there was no error committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in giving part of Plot No. 4061 to respondent No. 3. The respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 claimed to be bona fide purchaser of Plot No. 4061.;