DINESH KUMAR Vs. D D C BARABANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the opposite party No. 1 in Revision No. 813, under section 48 of U.F. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the order dated 15.1.2007 passed by the opposite party No. 2, contained in Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition. I have perused the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Barabanki and gone through the pleadings of the writ petition. From perusal of record, it transpires that due to partition of Gata No. 104 the opposite party No. 3 filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer, Pratapganj, district Barabanki and the said objection was dismissed in default vide order dated 6.6.2002 due to non-presence. The opposite party No. 3 filed recall application before the Consolidation Officer and during pendency of the application father of petitioners (Kandhai), who was arrayed as opposite party No. 2 in the recall application, died on 16.1.2006. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 without moving substitution application and without substituting the names of heirs and legal representatives of the deceased (Kandhai) obtained the order behind the back of the petitioners.

(2.) The pleadings of the writ petition further shows that the opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 15.1.2007 recalled the order dated 6.6.2002 without substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased (Kandhai). The petitioners feeling aggrieved against the order dated 15.1.2007 preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, district Barabanki, which was rejected by means of order dated 4.2.2011, which is impugned in the writ petition. The revisional order reveals that the order dated 6.6.2002 was recalled in the presence of parties at the cost of Rs. 20/- and the time was granted for filing objections upto 5.2.2007. It has also been observed by the revisional Court that about 40 dates have been fixed by the Consolidation Officer and both the parties have got full opportunity to lead their evidences before the Consolidation Officer. Accordingly, the revisional Court has not found any illegality in the order.

(3.) After examining the order of revisional Court dated 4.2.2011 as well as the order dated 15.1.2007 of the Consolidation Officer, I do not find any illegality in the same.