Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.5.2001 passed by the opposite party No. 1 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C.) contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and also to quash the order dated 16.9.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer/opposite party No. 2 contained in Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. By means of this order, writ petition No. 384 (Consolidation) of 2000 Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki shall also stands disposed of.
(2.) ANOTHER Writ Petition No. 384 (Cons.) of 2000, filed by the same petitioner, praying to quash the order dated 29.5.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 1265 under section of the Consolidation of Holdings Act Hari Prasad v. Rakesh Kumar, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record of both cases.
(3.) DURING the proceedings of Consolidation Gata No. 76 and 74 belonging to the petitioners and respondent No. 3 in writ petition No. 457 (Cons.) of 2001 & respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 384 (Cons.) 2000 respectively, will now referred respondent, new numbers were allotted to these Gatas as 175 & 173 respectively. Respondent Harihar in proceedings filed objection under section of the Act. It is said that no reply was filed by the petitioner and he also failed to appear before the Consolidation Officer, although he was served with the notice, so exparte proceedings started against him vide order dated 10.6.1998 and after going through the record on the report of Draftsman, Consolidation Officer passed order dated 16.9.1998 and allowed the objections. Saying that this order of the Consolidation Officer was passed in exparte proceedings, an application was moved by the petitioner in the same Court on 11.1.1999. It is said that notices were issued to the respondent for hearing of this application. He was served and appeared through Counsel in the matter. NO objections were filed by him so this application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.2.2000. Cost was awarded and the same was received by the Counsel for the respondent. Aggrieved by this order, respondent challenged the same before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision directly petitioner raised objection before the Deputy Director of Consolidation about maintainability of the Revision but his these objections were dismissed by the revisional Court vide order dated 29.5.2000. Against this order passed by the revisional Court, writ petition No. 386 (Consolidation) 2000 was filed by the petitioners before this Court. In this writ petition, this Court vide order dated 19.10.2000 directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the relevant record of the case in question pending before the Consolidation Officer as well as pertaining to the impugned order dated 29.5.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This writ petition remained pending but D.D.C. started hearing in the matter. It is said that Transfer Application was also moved by the petitioners for transferring the case from the Court concerned, this application was also pending but by the impugned order dated 30.5.2001, the Revision was finally disposed of by the D.D.C. Aggrieved by this order, this writ petition has been filed.;