JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri A.K. Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned Standing counsel for the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.12.1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation(hereinafter referred as D.D.C.), Raibareily by means of which the revision under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act has been allowed without issuing notices or affording opportunity to the petitioners.

3. The facts, for adjudication of the instant writ petition as emerged from the pleadings, are that the lease of the disputed lands was granted to the petitioners. The opposite party nos. 6 and 9 had filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, which were allowed by the consolidation officer after affording opportunity to adduce the evidence and after considering the same by means of the orders dated 11.12.1996. Thereafter the Gaon Sabha had filed an application for restoration. Considering the same, the order dated 11.12.1996 was stayed by means of the order dated 31.12.1996.