Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Dispute from which the present writ petition arises relates to property of one Ram Baran. The facts as stated in the writ petition and as they can be ascertained from the documents annexed with the writ petition are that there was a dispute between two women Dauli and Daulti claiming themselves to be the widows of Ram Baran. During the consolidation proceedings held in the Village under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), both Dauli and Daulti filed objections under Section 9A(2) of the Act, 1953 and during the pendency of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, Siddiqpur, District-Jaunpur both, Dauli and Daulti, died. Sons of both Dauli and Daulti filed appropriate substitution applications praying to be permitted to continue the objections filed by their mothers. The substitution applications filed by the sons of Daulti were dismissed as not pressed by the Consolidation Officer. However the substitution applications filed by the sons of Dauli were pressed and consequently allowed by the Consolidation Officer and as a result of the aforesaid proceedings on the substitution applications, the objections filed by Daulti stood dismissed and the objections filed by Dauli were allowed. Consequently, name of sons of Dauli i.e. Shivnath etc. were recorded in the Revenue Records in place of Ram Baran. The aforesaid order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 27.7.1999. When the petitioners came to know about order 27.7.1999, they filed an Appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953, which was numbered as Appeal No. 4533/1999, claiming that before her death, Daulti had executed a Will dated 14.2.1996 in their favour, and therefore, they were entitled to be substituted in place of Daulti. It is stated that the aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioners is still pending before the S.O.C. It appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, respondent No. 3 alongwith his brothers Ramesh and Umesh instituted proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the Act, 1953 before the Consolidation Officer, Badlapur, District-Jaunpur, in which order in favour of the aforesaid persons was passed by the concerned Consolidation Officer. It has been stated in the writ petition that the said proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, Badlapur, District-Jaunpur related to the same plots that were in issue before the Consolidation Officer, Siddiqpur, District-Jaunpur and were sub-judice in Appeal No. 4533 /1999. The said order was passed by the Consolidation Officer Badlapur, District-Jaunpur on 7.9.2006. Subsequently, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed a Revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 against the order dated 7.9.2006 passed by Consolidation Officer, Badlpur in Case No. 853/2006, which was numbered as Revision No. 2441/2007. It is stated that when the petitioners came to know about order dated 7.9.2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the pendency of Revision No. 2441/2007 before respondent No. 1, the petitioners filed an impleadment application in the aforesaid Revision praying to be impleaded as opposite party in the said Revision. The said impleadment application was dismissed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') vide order dated 2.7.2008 on the ground that that the petitioners/applicants had other remedies available in law and the impleadment application was not maintainable. Subsequently, the D.D.C. vide order dated 20.8.2008 allowed Revision No. 2441 of 2007 and remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer to pass a fresh order after hearing the concerned parties. After remand of the matter before the Consolidation Officer, Badlapur, the petitioners filed an application for impleadment before the Consolidation Officer, Badlapur. In the meantime, the opposite parties in Revision No. 2441/2007 challenged the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the D.D.C. in Writ Petition No. 46073 of 2008 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 19.9.2008 set aside the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the Revisional Court and directed it to pass a fresh order in the aforesaid Revision.
(3.) After the order dated 10.9.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 46073/2008, the petitioners again filed an impleadment application in Revision No. 2441/2007. The D.D.C. vide his order dated 2.1.2009 dismissed the aforesaid impleadment application on the ground that the previous impleadment application filed by the petitioners had already been dismissed vide order dated 2.7.2008, and therefore, there was no occasion to consider the present impleadment application. The orders dated 2.7.2008 and 2.1.2009 passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the present writ petition.;