Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Consolidation Courts dated 14.9.2009, 20.7.2010 and 26.3.2010.

3. As far as the order dated 26.3.2010 is concerned, the same was passed under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the Act, 1953') by the Consolidation Officer, wherein, the claim of the petitioners herein for mutation of their name in respect of the land in question on the basis of sale-deed executed by Smt. Kiran Srivastava on 2.7.2009 was declined on the ground that in separate proceedings wherein Smt. Kiran Srivastava was a party the S.O.C. had already opined that after marriage on 1.6.1990 Smt. Kiran Srivastava’s interest in the holdings which had devolved upon her from her mother, who inturn had succeeded to the holding of her husband i.e. the father-in-law of Smt. Kiran Srivastava, ceased and stood reverted in terms of Section 172(1) of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the Act, 1950') upon the nearest surviving heirs (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 171) of the last male bhumidhar or asami. Against the said order dated 26.3.2010 an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 had already been preferred by the petitioners herein which is still pending.

4. As far as the orders dated 14.9.2009 and 20.7.2010 are concerned, these arise from separate proceedings which originated under Section 9-A (2) of the Act, 1953, wherein, objections were filed by the respondents herein the sons of Jagdev Sahai Lal and their successors in interest, whereas, those, namely, Anil Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar, who had purchased part of the 1/3 share of Smt. Kiran Srivastava had filed objections under Section 12 of the Act, 1953. In those proceedings initially an order was passed on 5.9.1997 for recording the names of Murli Manohar and Raja Mohan Srivastava the two sons of Jagdev Sahai Lal and Smt. Kiran Srivastava the grand daughter of Jagdev Sahai Lal i.e. the daughter of pre-deceased son Shyam Manohar. Prior to this the name of Smt. Sobhawati the mother of Smt. Kiran Srivastava was recorded. As the order dated 5.9.1997 was allegedly ex parte, therefore, on an application being filed by the respondents herein, the same was recalled on 4.9.1998. This order dated 4.9.1998 was never challenged. As, even after recall of the order dated 5.9.1997, the entries made in the revenue records in pursuance thereof continued and were not expunged, therefore, the respondents filed an application for correction of the order dated 4.9.1998 praying that the said consequential entires be expunged. This application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 18.2.1999.

5. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that in these proceedings the petitioners herein were not parties and in fact did not even figure in the scheme of things, as, by then they had not purchased the land in question from Smt. Kiran Srivastava.

6. Be that as it may, being aggrieved, the respondents herein filed two appeals in one of which they challenged the order dated 5.9.1997, even though the same had already been recalled, and in the other appeal they challenged the order dated 18.2.1999 referred herein above. An interim order was passed by which the order dated 5.9.1997 was stayed. Thereafter, the proceedings took place and the appellate Court ultimately recorded a finding that after marriage on 1.6.1990 the holding which had devolved upon Smt. Kiran Srivastava stood reverted in terms of Section 172(1) of the Act, 1950 upon the nearest heir of the last male bhumidhar (Jagdeve Sahai Lal) i.e. upon his sons Murli Manohar and Raja Mohan Srivastava. The petitioners were not parties before the appellate Court for the reasons already mentioned herein above.

7. In the meantime, as they purchased the land in questio