HAFIZULLAH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for private respondents No. 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No. 1 and 2.

(2.) In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court proceeds to decide the instant writ petition finally, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties who are present in the Court, without calling for their respective affidavits. Respondent No. 4 has no interest in the property in question inasmuch as he has executed a sale deed qua his share in favour of respondent No. 3 who is already represented through her counsel.

(3.) The petitioners have shown their grievance against the order dtd. 15/4/2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') whereby the petitioners have been directed to resort to an alternative remedy to file restoration application against the alleged ex parte order dtd. 15/12/2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer.