Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that vide ex-parte order dated 28.3.2009 passed by Consolidation Officer, Tehsil Kanth, District Moradabad, the entry made in revenue record in favour of the petitioners has been expunged and name of Gaon Sabha was directed to be entered for the plot in dispute. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation who vide his order dated 26.5.2009 has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 28.3.2009 passed by Consolidation Officer, Tehsil Kanth, District Moradabad, but the order dated 26.5.2009 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation has been again recalled vide order dated 6.6.2009 and case was directed to be adjudicated on merit by Consolidation Officer. But while remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer nothing has been said about the earlier order dated 28.3.2009 passed by Consolidation Officer. Therefore, the petitioners are apprehending that in case the order dated 28.3.2009 passed by Consolidation Officer is not stayed or set aside, their case would be prejudiced and it would be possible for the land belonging to the petitioners may be allotted to someone else. Therefore, it is submitted that during the pendency of proceedings before Consolidation Officer the order dated 28.3.2009 earlier passed by Consolidation Officer shall be kept abeyance. In my opinion, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners has substance and has to be accepted. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the order dated 28.3.2009 passed by Consolidation Officer shall be kept abeyance till he decides the dispute on merit as directed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad.
(3.) With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition Disposed of.;