JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard. 2. Taking note of the facts of the case as also that the matter is extremely old and also that in view of order proposed to be passed no prejudice could be caused to private respondent(s), the issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s), as per the report(s) of the Office, is hereby dispensed with. 3. The petitioners namely Basdeo and Sukh Deo, sons of Gopal, by means of the present petition, have impeached the order dated 27.07.1971 (annexed as annexure No.4 to the petition) passed by the opposite party No.9-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, Camp at Faizabad, in Revision No.973 of 1971 preferred under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). The order dated 27.07.1971 reads as under:- "This is revision No. 973/1971 filed by Sri Ram Lal s/ o Sri Suchit against Sri Basdeo and others under section 48-48 of the Consolidation Holdings Act against the judgment and order of A.S.O.C. dated 19.6.71 in appeal No. 2247 in respect of khatas No. 114, 115, 118, 166 and 175 of village Sheikhpur, Malpura, Pargana Bidhar, Tahsil Tanda, District Faizabad. 2. The parties in this case belong to the same family as will be clear from the following pedigree- In the basic year khatauni Sri Basdeo and others s/o Sri Gopal, Kanhaiya and others ss/o Sri Suchit as well as Sri Udit s/o Sri Bechu are recorded as sirdar over the land in question. Sri Ram Lal one of the sons of Sri Suchit filed a time bared objection on 7.1.71 claiming co-tenancy rights in the same. 3. The Consolidation Officer in case No. 3325 observed that the village was published under section 9 of U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act in March 1970 and the present objection has been filed on 7.1.71 Sri Ram Lal in has alleged that he is living outside in connection his service. He did not know the his name was not recorded over the land in question. The consolidation officer however held that the explanation furnished by Sri Ram Lal was not satisfactory and dismissed his objection as time barred. The reupan Sri Ram Lal preferred appeal No. 2247 against the above order C.O. The A.C.S.O.C. also dismissed the appeal. Now Sri Ram Lal has come in revision against the above order of the courts. The consolidation officer however held that the explanation furnished by Sri Ram Lal was not satisfactory and dismissed his objection as time barred. The reupan Sri Ram Lal preferred appeal No. 2247 against the above order C.O. The A.C.S.O.C. also dismissed the appeal. Now Sri Ram Lal has come in revision against the above order of the courts. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the orders of the courts below. I have also gone through the lower court's filed in this regard. It is admitted that Sri Ram Lal is also son of Sri Suchit as brother of Sri Kanhaiya and there is no reason why he should not be recorded as co-tenant along with his other brothers. In the interest of justice the C.O.C. has exercised his discretion properly in the interest of justice as it is admitted that Sri Ram Lal is brother of Sri Kanhaiya and other ss/o Sri Suchit. Under the circumstances I therefore condone the delay and proceed to decide the case on merits, specially when all the facts are admitted in this case. Sri Ram Lal s/o Sri Suchit is obviously entitled to recorded as co sirdars along with his brothers Sri Kanhaiya in the khatas in question. 5. In view of the above I allow the present revision and set aside the orders of the courts below. The result is that the share of Sri Ram Lal s/o Suchit shall have 1/12 share in all the khatas along with 1/12 share each of his other three brothers in 1/3 share of their father Sri Suchit in the khatas in question. The village Papers shall be corrected accordingly. A copy of this order shall be sent to C.O. for necessary amaldramad in the village papers." 4. The petitioners, named above, have also assailed the order dated 05.12.1981 passed in Reference No.1332 (Ram Lal v. Sukhdeo) preferred under Section 48 of the Act of 1953. The village Papers shall be corrected accordingly. A copy of this order shall be sent to C.O. for necessary amaldramad in the village papers." 4. The petitioners, named above, have also assailed the order dated 05.12.1981 passed in Reference No.1332 (Ram Lal v. Sukhdeo) preferred under Section 48 of the Act of 1953. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:- ^^i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dh cgl foLrkj ls lquh x;hA fookn ;g gS fd D;k dUgS;k] eqjyh vkSj jkepju iq=x.k lwfpr ds uke ls tks Hkwfe ntZ gS mlh esa jke yky dks lg[kkrsnkjh dk va'k feysxk vFkok lEiw.kZ fookfnr Hkwfe esa lwfpr ds 1@3 va'k ij mlds pkjksa iq=ksa dks 1@12 dh nj ls va'k feysxkA cklnso vkSj lq[knso ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us bl U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 27-07-81 vkSj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 02-02-78 dks Li"V djrs gq, dgk fd bu vkns'kksa ds vUrxZr ;g O;oLFkk nh x;h gS fd lwfpr ds 3 iq= dUgS;k] eqjyh vkSj jke pju ds uke tks Hkwfe ntZ gS mlh esa 1@2 va'k jkeyky dks feysxkA blds fojks/k esa jkeyky ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k us ;g dgk fd bl U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 27-07-71 ds vUrxZr lEiw.kZ fookfnr Hkwfe ds 1@3 Hkkx dk 1@12 Hkkx jkeyky dks feyuk pkfg;sA bl izdkj nksuksa i{kksa ds chp fookn bl U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 27-07-71 vkSj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 02-02-78 esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dks lgh le>us ls laca/k j[krk gSA esjh jk; esa bl U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 27-07-71 esa ;g Li"V fu.kZ; fn;k x;k gS fd lEiw.kZ fookfnr Hkwfe esa lwfpr ds 1@3 Hkkx dks 1@12 jkeyky dks feysxk vkSj ;g rF; ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k esa Hkh fy;k x;k gSA blfy, cklnso vkSj lq[knso ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ lgh ugha gSA tks lUnHkZ Lohd`r fd;k x;k Fkk mlesa dsoy mlh Hkwfe dk 1@12 Hkkx jkeyky dks fn;k x;k gS tks lwfpr ds rhuksa yMdksa esa ntZ gSA ;gh lgh ugha gSA oLrqr% vkns'k ;g gS fd lEiw.kZ fookfnr Hkwfe esa lwfpr ds 1@3 Hkkx dk 1@12 Hkkx lwfpr ds izR;sd yMds dks feysxkA rnzqlkj lUnHkZ cuuk pkfg,A mijksDr ifj'khyu ds izdk'k esa ;g cktnk;j Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gS rc fookfnr Hkwfe Hkw lUnHkZ fujLr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj pdcanh vf/kdkjh dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og mijksDr vkns'k ds ifjikyu esa la'kks/ku rkfydk fu;ekuqlkj izLrqr djsaA blds fy, cktnk;jdrkZ foi{khx.k dks :0 25@& dk gtkZ vnk djsaA i{kdkj pdcanh vf/kdkjh ds lEeq[k fnukad 16-12-81 dks mifLFkr gksaA** 5. A perusal of the order dated 05.12.1981 indicates that the same is based upon the order dated 27.07.1971, impeached in the present petition, as also the order of this Court dated 02.02.1978 passed in Writ Petition No.1540 of 1971 preferred by Sukh Deo and Basdeo, present petitioners. The judgment and order of this Court dated 02.02.1978 being relevant reads as under:- "Sukh Deo and Basdeo have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing of the order dated 27.7.1971 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. The sole contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in this petition is that Deputy Director of Consolidation arbitrarily proceeded to condone the delay in filing objections by Ram Lal, who had preferred time-barred objection and not only this instead of remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer he proceeded to allocate the shares and finally adjudicated the dispute. I have given my anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and I am constraint to observe that there is not much of substance in the same. A revision had been preferred by Ram Lal before Deputy Director of Consolidation in which apart from the petitioners, his own brothers Kanhaiya, Murali and Ram Janam sons of Suchit and Murari, Bholai, Ram Piare and Ram Lautan etc. had been impleaded as party, the Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering the various facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice, allowed the objection to be taken on record. He then proceeded to pass the following order: - "I allow the present revision and set aside the orders of the courts below. The result is that the share of Sri Rampal s/o Suchit shall have 1/12 share in all the Khatas along with 1/12 share of each of his other three brothers in 1/2 share of their father Sri Suchit in the Khatas in question." In the present petition except Ram Lal none else has been impleaded as a party. If any order is passed setting aside the impugned order, other parties are also likely to be affected. In my opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the absence of necessary parties being impleaded as either petitioners or opposite parties in this petition. If any order is passed setting aside the impugned order, other parties are also likely to be affected. In my opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the absence of necessary parties being impleaded as either petitioners or opposite parties in this petition. I am further of the view that no rights of the petitioners have materially been affected inasmuch as, they have not been deprived of any share by allocation of share to Ram Lal. In fact what has been done is to allow Ram Lal also a share in the 1/3rd share belonging to Suchit which shall be shared by all his descendants. That being so, persons really to be affected are the descendants of Suchit who shall be deprived of 1/12 the share. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is clear that he accepts 1/3rd share of Suchit and out of that share he has put Ram Lal at par with other sons of Suchit. That being so, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as the writ petition inherently suffer from laches pointed out above. In view of the observations made above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order to costs." 6. From the order dated 02.02.1978, quoted above, it is apparent that the order dated 27.07.1971 passed by the opposite party No.9 was challenged before this Court and the same was affirmed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 02.02.1978. 7. Taking note of aforesaid, this Court finds that this petition challenging the order dated 27.07.1971 is completely mis-conceived rather it is an abuse of process of law, more particularly, when the order dated 27.07.1971 was affirmed by this Court vide judgment and order 02.02.1978 passed in Writ Petition No.1540 of 1971 filed by Sukh Deo and Basdeo, petitioners of the present petition. 8. So far as the order dated 05.12.1981 is concerned, the opposite party No.9 has not adjudicated anything but has reiterated the order dated 27.07.1971 affirmed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 02.02.1978, quoted above. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the present petition for the relief related to the order dated 05.12.1981 is also mis-conceived. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.