(1.) Heard Sri A.P. Tewari, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bakhteyar Yusuf, the counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) Sri Bakhteyar Yusuf, the counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 states that the writ petition may be decided on the documents annexed with the writ petition itself and no counter affidavit is required.
(3.) The necessary facts relevant to decide the present writ petition are that against the order dated 15.6.1982 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 9- A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') in favour of one Smt. Rasoolan, i.e., the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') which was allowed by the S.O.C. on the basis of admission allegedly made by Smt. Rasoolan in the appellate court admitting the claim of the petitioner. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 7.9.1996 passed by the S.O.C. After the order dated 7.9.1996, Smt. Rasoolan executed sale deeds dated 25.11.1997 and 2.12.1997 transferring the disputed plots to respondent nos. 2 and 3. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed a recall application before the S.O.C. for recall of the order dated 7.9.1996 which was allowed by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 8.11.2002. The revision and writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.11.2002 were dismissed. Consequently, the S.O.C. re-heard the appeal and again, on the basis of admission made by Smt. Rasoolan, allowed the appeal vide his order dated 16.9.2017. Against the order dated 16.9.2017, respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed Revision No. 517/822 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') vide his order dated 27.6.2019. The order dated 27.6.2019 passed by the D.D.C. in Revision No. 517/822 has been challenged in the present writ petition.