Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) Heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ratnesh Kumar Pandey on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent State and Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Palika Parishad, Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad (respondent No. 6).
(2.) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that repeated writ petitions are being filed for the same cause of action by the petitioners and her family members. Earlier Writ Petition filed by one Nizam Chaudhary being Writ Petition No. 33283 of 2010 was dismissed by the order dated 7/6/2010. Thereafter this petition has been filed by the present petitioners for the same relief. Petitioner No. 1 is the real sister-in-law (elder brother's wife) of Nizam Chaudary. Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners in the present petition have independent right of filing writ petition with regard to her own rights and therefore, it cannot be said that this petition is barred.
(3.) Without going into the said controversy, from a perusal of the record, I find that the present petition has been filed assailing correctness of the order dated 1/5/2010 and 18/5/2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Reference Case No. 1072 of 1972, which had been decided on 29/6/1972. An application was filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Murad Nagar for recalling the said order dated 29/6/1972 on the ground that it was tainted with fraud and interpolation in the records. A stay application was also filed by the State of U.P. in which an interim order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 1/5/2010 providing that the effect and implementation of the order dated 29.6.1972 shall remain stayed and further status quo shall be maintained on the spot. Subsequently the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order dated 18/5/2010 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties to the following effect- (i) Firstly that the delay in filing the recall application is condoned in view of the fact that the order dated 29/6/1972 was prima facie found to be tainted by fraud and interpolation. (ii) Secondly, in addition to the earlier order dated 1/5/2010 which provides that the operation of the order dated 29/6/1972 shall remain stayed and staus quo would be maintained on the spot which shall continue, it was also provided that the parties shall not sell the land in dispute. The matter was fixed for 8.6.2010 for further consideration.;