SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The facts relevant for a decision of the writ petition are that one Kalika was chak holder No. 58 and the respondent No. 2 was chak holder No. 508. The dispute between the parties in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Plot No. 253. It appears that Plot No. 253 was proposed in Chak No. 508 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and aggrieved Kalika filed objections registering Case No. 2809 before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.') claiming a chak on Plot No. 253. The aforesaid objections of Kalika were allowed and Chak No. 253 was included in Chak No. 58. Aggrieved, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.S.O.C.') which was registered as Appeal No. 539. The A.S.O.C. dismissed the aforesaid appeal filed by respondent No. 2. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed Revision No. 814/119 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') which was partly allowed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 16.6.1992.
(3.) The grievance of the respondent No. 2 in the appeal and revision was that as a result of the order of Consolidation Officer, the Chak No. 58, chak allotted to respondent No. 2 became irregular and 'L' shaped. In her appeal and revision, the respondent No. 2 prayed that her chak be widened and that her chak be formed East-West so that she made get the entire area infront of her house. The chak allotted to respondent No. 2 was infront of her house. In his order dated 16.6.1992, the D.D.C. did not accept the claim of respondent No. 2 as payed by her in her appeal and revision, but considering the equities of the case widened her chak on the Northern side as a result of which some area of Plot No. 253 in Chak No. 58 was withdrawn and included in Chak No. 508, i.e., the chak of respondent No. 2. It is also apparent from the records that during the proceedings before the D.D.C., Kalika died and Shiv Kumar, Umapati and Vachaspati were substituted as respondents in Revision No. 814/199 in place of Kalika. Subsequently, petitioners filed a recall application dated 25.8.1992 in Revision No. 814/119 praying for recall of the order dated 16.6.1992 on the ground that Kalika died during the proceedings in the said revision and his estate devolved on his widow Ramrani, who had executed a Will in favour of the petitioners, and therefore, after the death of Ramrani, the petitioners succeeded to the estate of Kalika and were thus entitled to be substituted in place of Kalika in Revision No. 814/119 and were also entitled to be heard in the revision filed by respondent No. 2. It was stated in the said recall application that the order dated 16.6.1992 was passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and was therefore liable to be recalled and Revision No. 814/119 was liable to be reheard after restoring the same to its original number. On the aforesaid recall application, Restoration Case No. 543 under Section 201 of Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1901') was registered in the court of the D.D.C., who vide his order dated 7.9.1993 dismissed Restoration Case No. 543. The order dated 7.9.1993 was passed by the D.D.C. on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 was effectively represented by her husband who was doing Pairvi of the case on behalf of Kalika and respondent No. 2. The orders dated 16.6.1992 and 7.9.1993 passed by the D.D.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition.;