ORDER

Satish Chandra, J. - This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. It prays that the orders dated 21-12-1965 and 7-1-1966 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the order dated 21-4-1966 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation be quashed.

2. One Nand Ram was the occupancy tenant of three holdings Nos. 157, 241 and 338. He died in or about 1952 leaving a widow Mst. Mukandi. The widow also died on or about July 1958. The Petitioners Sita Ram and Lotan Singh are the sister's son of Nand Ram. Respondent No. 3 Hukam Singh is the son-in-law of Nand Ram. Bijendra Singh, Respondent No. 4, claims to be the daughter's son of Nand Ram. On the death of Nand Ram's widow Mukandi in 1958, disputes arose as to succession. Several litigations were fought out between the parties, but during their pendency proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act commenced. At this time, the revenue records showed that over holding No. 157, Smt. Mukandi, the widow of Nand Ram, was entered as a bhumidhar. She was entered as a sirdar over holding No. 338. Holding No. 241 (excluding plot Nos. 1041 and 1042) was entered in the name of Hukam Singh. Hukam Singh had transferred plot Nos. 1041 and 1042 in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 and as such these Respondents were entered over plot Nos. 1041 and 1042 of holding No. 241.

3. The Petitioners claim all the three holdings as the sister's sons of Nand Ram. They filed an objection in respect of all the three holdings claiming them as the sister's sons of Nand Ram. They denied that Hukum Singh had been engrafted as a cotenant of Nand Ram. Hukam Singh filed a claim for holding Nos. 157 and 338. He did not file any objection in respect of holding No. 241 because his name existed thereon. He claimed that Nand Ram had in his life time made him a cotenant and that on his death he is entitled to the holdings by survivorship. He denied that the Petitioners were the sister's sons of Nand Ram and contested their claim. Bijendra Singh, Respondent No. 4, also filed objections. He admitted that Hukam Singh was a co-tenant of Nand Ram. He claimed to be the daughter's son of Nand Ram and 'contended that on the death of Nand Ram's widow he will inherit the half share of Nand Ram in the holdings, the other half going to Hukam Singh. He also contested the claim of the Petitioners to be the sister's sons of Nand Ram. The Petitioners contested the claim set up by Bijendra Singh and filed a written statement to Bijendra Singh's claim. They denied that Bijendra Singh was the daughter's son of Nand Ram.

4. Several dates were fixed for hearing on some of which parties led evidence, documentary as well as oral. Ultimately 21-12-1965 was fixed for hearing. The Petitioners were not present. Respondents Hukam Singh and Bijendra Singh were present. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of the Petitioners ex parte. The Consolidation Officer observed in his order that Hukam Singh has stated that Bijendra Singh be recorded as a co-tenant in the three holdings. He, therefore, ordered that the name of Bijendra Singh be recorded over the three holdings.

5. Three days later i.e. on 24-12-1965 the Petitioners filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 21-12-1965. 7th January, 1966 was fixed for the disposal of this application. The Petitioners' case is that when the case was about to be called they went to fetch their counsel but by the time they returned with their counsel, the restoration applications were dismissed for default of appearance of the Petitioners. The same day the Petitioners made another application for the setting aside of the order passed on 7-1-1966. The Consolidation Officer dismissed this application summarily on the ground that the Petitioners can go up in appeal against the dismissal of their first restoration application. The Petitioners went up in appeal against the order dated 7-1-1966 and succeeded.