Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) This writ petition has come up for admission after about 11 years.
(2.) Under challenge is an order passed by District Deputy Director of Consolidation on 2.7.99 by which the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 31.1.94 has been set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress that the appeal submitted by the petitioner, was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 31.1.94. The revision preferred by Gaon Sabha was dismissed by District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad on 29.10.94. Thereafter another revision was preferred by an individual tenure holder, which was dismissed on 28.7.99. Another revision was preferred by Gaon Sabha, which was dismissed on 12.2.98. However, fresh exercises were exercised. The Gaon Sabha had filed revision before District Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order dated 31.1.94 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation. This exercise cannot have been done in the light of Judgment of Anarkali's case. The revision which was disposed of, cannot be reopened and no review could be sought.
(3.) Sri D.C. Jain has put in appearance on behalf of Gaon Sabha. According to him attention of the Court was drawn to various paras of the counter affidavit. He submits that the plot no.104 belongs to Gaon Sabha, it was public land having large number of trees and it is situated on the national highway. This was appurtenant to national highway and was a valuable land and the petitioner could not usurp the public property. Moreover, the controversy between the parties had already been set at rest earlier. The Gaon Sabha was not afforded the opportunity of hearing. Their interests have been prejudiced as a valuable public land and the trees were being taken away. No cultivation was possible on the said land as large number of trees were standing on plot no.104.;