- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 30. 4. 1997 and 14. 6. 1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consoli dation, Ghazipur whereby and where un der he has allowed Revision Nos. 15/17/15/328 on 30. 4. 1997 and dismissed the recall application filed by the petitioner on 14. 6. 1999. It appears that against the order dated 23. 8. 1977 passed by the Settle ment Officer of Consolidation, the contesting respondents No. 2 and 3 filed the aforesaid revision under section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The said revision was allowed on 30. 4. 1997. Thereaf ter an application to recall the said order was filed on the ground that one of the op posite parties i. e. Sakal Deo in the revision has died on 4. 7. 1996 and as such without impleading his heirs, the revision could not have been heard and decided on merits. The said application having been dismissed by the order dated 14. 6. 1999, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) HEARD the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It was not disputed before me that Sakal Deo one of the opposite party in the revision expired on 4. 7. 1996 and the revision was decided subsequently. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that sons of Sakal Deo participated in the proceedings and they had full knowledge about the revision. On this ba sis, he supports the impugned order. I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions, but it is diffi cult to agree with him. The fact remains that the heirs of Sakal Deo were not substituted in the revision. The finding that sons of Sakal Deo participated in the proceeding is based on irrelevant consideration and proper pro cedure which is required to be followed has substitute the heirs of a deceased was indis putably not followed in the revision.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified in rejecting the recall application filed by the petitioner by the impugned order. The interest of justice also demands, that the dispute should be settled between the parties after giving adequate oppor tunity to them. In view of above discussion, the order dated 30. 4. 1997 allowing the revision and the order dated 14. 6. 1999 dismissing the recall application are hereby set aside. The matter is restored to its original num ber. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall hear and decide the revision afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. By way of clarification, it is added that no further notice is required to be given to the petitioners and they are re quired to appear before the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation on 12. 1. 2009 along with a certified copy of this order. The authority concerned shall fix a date for the hearing of the revision thereafter.;