K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) The above noted three writ petitions have been filed against a common judgment of the revisional Court dated 8-10-1974. Therefore, all the above writ petitions are being dealt with and decided through a common judgment. The dispute amongst the parties is about share in the disputed land.
(2.) In writ petition No. 2846 of 1975 Bechu and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others the only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the contesting opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6 in this petition were transferees of the petitioners and they had lost their claim before the appellate authority and had not filed any revision petition before the revisional court yet their claim has been recognised by the revisional court through the impugned judgment. Thus there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record and the impugned judgment should be quashed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted that the contesting opposite parties have got their due share in the disputed land who had purchased the property from the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners is not fair and honest in denying the title of the contesting opposite parties. Therefore, it is not a fit case where interference should be made at the instance of the petitioners.;