RAJ KISHORE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) THE petitioner feel aggrieved by an order, dated 31-8-95 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereunder a reference under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act made by the Consolidation Officer has been accepted and setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 23-6-95 and 31-1-84, the revenue records relating to the plots in dispute has been directed, to be corrected, expunging the entries in the names of the petitioners showing them to be the tenure-holders of the said plots.

(3.) THE facts as they emerge from the material brought on record in respect whereof there is no dispute it is obvious that under the order passed by this Court, dated 23-8-95 disposing of finally the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21613 of 1995, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to pass a final order in the proceeding under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in question after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners making it clear that the petitioners will have the opportunity to raise the plea as to the binding efficacy of the judgment and orders previously passed in their favour and further requiring the Deputy Director of Consolidation to examine such pleas in accordance with law. This Court in its aforesaid order had further made it clear that if the orders relied upon by the petitioners in support of their claim were found to have been obtained fraudulently the Deputy Director of Consolidation would be well within his jurisdiction to ignore such orders.