SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA,J. - (1.) HEARD Dr.L.P.Mishra & Mr.Sharad Pathak, learned counsels for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as Mr.Mohd. Adil Khan, Mohd.Aslam Khan, Mr.R.N.Gupta & Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsels for the opposite parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved with the orders dated 7.12.2004, 19.8.2009, 16.11.2009 and direction dated 22.11.2004 passed by the opposite parties 4, 3, 2 and 6 respectively, whereby the petitioner's name recorded in Gata No.556/1.75,527/1.54 and 530/0.27 has been expunged. The petitioner is claiming possession over the aforesaid Gatas since before the date of vesting i.e. 1st of July, 1952. Briefly, the case as set out by the petitioner is that in 1993 he filed a suit to declare him as tenure holder with transferable rights under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was decreed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bahraich by means of order dated 16th of September, 1993. In 1995 the area in question was notified for consolidation operation. Since the petitioner's name was not mutated in the revenue record, pursuant to the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, he moved an application for mutation of his name before the Consolidation Officer, who passed the order on 5th of August, 2000 for mutation of his name in the revenue record, pursuant to which the concerned Lekhpal incorporated his name in the revenue record on 8th of August, 2000. One Mr.Rudendra Vikram Singh, who was nephew of the petitioner being jealous to the petitioner inspected the record of case No.177/145 registered under Section 229-B of the Act in 2000 and after inspection he came to know about the order i.e. 16th of September, 1993. Then he moved an application for recall of order dated 16th of September, 1993 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bahraich, which is still pending consideration. The petitioner against the proceeding of the application for recall filed a writ petition which was registered as writ petition No.3239 (MS) of 2001. This court by means of order dated 5th of November, 2001 stayed the proceeding with the direction that the status quo as on today shall be maintained by the parties over the property in question. Subsequently, this court by means of order dated 24th of January, 2005, modified the order dated 5th of November, 2001 to the extent that proceeding before the Sub Divisional Officer will continue by maintaining the status quo on the spot as already directed. In the meantime the Consolidation Officer, Nanpara cancelled the entries made in the revenue record by means of order dated 7th of December, 2004 without noticing to the petitioner.
(3.) IT is stated that on a complaint moved by Mr.Rudendra Vikram Singh, the Chief Revenue Officer, Bahraich issued direction to the Sub Divisional Officer, Bahraich to look into the matter and cancel it, on being proved the entry as forged, pursuant to which the Settlement Officer Consolidation took cognizance and issued direction to the Consolidation Officer, Nanpara to take cognizance under the relevant provisions and cancel it. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction on the application moved by Mr.Rudendra Vikram Singh the Consolidation Officer registered a case under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H.Act as case No.895 and cancelled the entries by means of order dated 7th of December, 2004. Being aggrieved with which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bahraich inter alia on the ground that the earlier order dated 27th of January, 2002 passed by the Consolidation Officer has become final. There is no provision to review the same as it is a decision of Lok Adalat, which is neither appellable nor revisable under the provisions of the Act, thus the subsequent order passed by the Consolidation Officer is without jurisdiction. Further the order has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, it is in violation of principles of natural justice.;