SALIK RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. O. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. S. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have purchased the plot No. 2902 on 19.4.1996 and 21.8.1997 and subsequently, the opposite party No.3 has purchased some portion of the land of plot No. 2902. The petitioners filed time barred objections under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer, to which after inspection, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has submitted the report before the Consolidation Officer. Being aggrieved, the opposite parties 3 to 8 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who in turn, allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of the revisional Court being vacant, no order could be passed and now, the Presiding Officer has been posted and he may be directed to decide the case expeditiously, to which learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has no objection. In view of above, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the revisional authority to decide the revision, in accordance with law, latest by 30.9.2009.