Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition is listed for admission. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Counsels for the respective parties have agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally at the stage of admission itself. After completing the arguments, written submissions were also filed.

3. The judgment and orders impugned in the instant writ petition are dated 28.12.1991 and 11.1.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria allowing revision No. 101-221/1589, Vijay Bahadur and others v. Om Prakash and others, as well as rejecting the recall application on behalf of the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 28.12.1991.

4. When the consolidation proceedings commenced Sri Tapsi, father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Phullan Prasad respondent No. 4 filed their objections in respect of plot No. 52 area 0.38 decimal and plot No. 54 area 0.04 decimal of Khata No. 29 situated in village Harraiya, Tappa Salempur, Pargana Salempur Majauli, District Deoria. In the basic year Khatauni, names of Mahatam and Ram Chandra Lal were recorded. Perusal of the order of the Consolidation Officer shows that objector respondents adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Phullan Prasad and Mangal son of Dukhi deposed in favour of respondents and documentary evidence filed was extract of Khatauni 1302 Fasli, Fard Matabiqat pertaining to1324 Fasli, extract Khatauni 1324 Fasli, extract Khatauni 1355 to 1359 Fasli, copy of map pertaining to the year 1916-17 as well as map of 1883-84. An Advocate Commissioner was also got appointed who submitted a report after making spot inspection on 12.10.1971. The Consolidation Officer himself had made spot inspection in presence of both the parties and report was dated 27.7.1971. The petitioners did not adduce any documentary evidence but examined Ram Mahatam Lal as a witness. The Consolidation Officer recorded his finding that on plot No. 52 at the time of spot inspection he found abadi only in an area of 0.08 decimal and 0.06 decimal (0.14 decimal). On the remaining portion a house was standing as well as some trees but he recorded a finding that it cannot be defined as ‘abadi’. Thus the finding of the Consolidation Officer was that .14 decimal is abadi on plot No. 52 and remaining .24 decimal is not an abadi. So far the objections only for the said area was allowed and objection of Tapsi Lal was rejected for the remaining portion. An appeal was preferred by Tapsi and Phullan Prasad against the petitioners. The Settlement Officer Consolidation examined extract of Khatauni 1355 to 1359 Fasli only and confirmed the finding of the Consolidation Officer. Though he has recorded arguments raised on behalf of respondents that previous litigation had also taken place in respect of gata Nos. 52 and 54 and it was held as abadi of the respondents but somehow due to mistake the names of the petitioners have been recorded over the said plots and finally rejected the appeal. A revision was preferred by the respondents under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 28.12.1991.

5. The petitioner Om Prakash preferred a recall application on 30.12.1991 and another recall application was preferred by Satya Prakash and Vijay Prakash and Smt. Kunti Devi on 19.8.1996 stating therein that the impugned order dated 28.12.1991 was passed without hearing them and they were not aware about the date fixed and, therefore, they may be given another opportunity of hearing. The Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the respective parties at length and finding was recorded that the original order dated 28.12.1991 shows that the counsel for both the parties were heard. It is also mentioned in the order that the reference were looked into and all the legal arguments were discussed and thereafter certain alterations were made in the appellate order passed by the