DINANATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned A.C. to A.A.G.13 appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. However, neither any counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is present nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf disputing the assertion made in the present writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 12.6.1989 (Annexure-6) passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 1773 of 1987 by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation (Head Quarter), Bihar, Patna, whereby the aforesaid revision application filed on behalf of the petitioners was dismissed and the order dated 30.6.1987 (Annexure-5) passed in Consolidation Appeal No. 15 of 1986-87 by the respondent Assistant Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur at Ara was affirmed.

(3.) THOUGH private respondents are not represented by their lawyer, yet learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and has supported the impugned order.