- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
(2.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in court today which is taken on record.
(3.) This supplementary affidavit has been filed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 08.02.2019 which is quoted hereinbelow:- "This petition arises out of an objection under Section 9(A)(2) filed by the petitioners for getting their names recorded over land allegedly allotted to them by means of two separate pattas, both allegedly executed on 5.10.1979. The objection was allowed. Against this order a time barred appeal was filed by the Land Management Committee, giving rise to Case No.2438. This appeal was allowed by the order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The petitioners' therefore, preferred separate revisions, respectively. The revisions have been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation recording that only a photo copy of the alleged allotment was filed. The alleged allotment was not established in absence of the original patta. Even copy of the resolution was not filed to establish the alleged allotment. By the alleged allotments an area of 8 bhighas and one biswa of land has been allotted in total to husband and wife on the same date. The allotments are also alleged to have been approved by the S.D.M. concerned, the same day. When the matter came up for admission, learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions. The instructions were received on 18.1.2019 and a copy was provided to counsel for the petitioner to enable him to file his reply, if any. Today, on the matter being called out, further two weeks' time has been prayed for filing a reply. The instructions that are available on record state that no record of any allotment made in favour of the petitioners' is available in the record room, and that upon examination of all records pertaining to allotments made in the year 1975-76 and 1977-78, it is found that no allotment had been made in favour of either of the two petitioners'. Therefore, it is writ large on the face of the record that the petitioner has no case, also because despite time having been granted, no evidence of a valid allotment or any evidence controverting the allegations made in the instructions has been brought on record till date. Even, other wise this Court, finds that there were two separate revisions filed by each of the petitioners' which have been decided by a common judgement but only a single writ petition has been filed and that too by paying only one set of court fees. Therefore, there is a single writ petition which has to be treated as by one of the petitioners, which choice counsel for the petitioner, will have to make. However, the matter is being adjourned for one last time to enable the petitioner to file any evidence, affidavit etc. which he may proposed to file. It is must necessarily be filed by the next date. Put up this matter on 19.2.2019 in the additional case list.";