SIDDHNATH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. I.D. Shukla,learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.N. Pandey, learned counsel for opposite parties 3 to 5.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved with orders dated 12.9.2000, 9.11.2000 and 21.8.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad i.e. opposite party No. 1.

(3.) By means of order dated 12.9 2000 the opposite party No. 1 has ordered to record the names of opposite parties 3 to 5 in place of Smt. Rampyari widow of Mr. Brahmadeen in Khata Nos. 79 and 323, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, whereas the petitioners' case is that they were parties in the proceedings till the stage of appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad, but in the revision preferred by the opposite parties they were not impleaded as party before opposite party No. 1 whereas the parties entered into collusive compromise, which has become the part of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. It prejudices the right of the petitioners. The petitioners moved an application for recall of the order, but treating the same as application for review, it has not been entertained as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to review the said order. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not the party in the revision. Therefore, they moved the application for impleadment along with application for recall of the order which has been rejected.