ARUN TANDON,J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed by the same peti­tioners in respect of the same plot No. 136, village Minaura, District Jalaun. Therefore, both are being decided by means of this common judgment.
(2.) THE facts in short are as follows : It is stated that the plot No. 135 was earlier numbered as plot No. 1060 and it was recorded in the name of the mother of the petitioner namely Ratan Kunwar. Pro­ceedings under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were initiated before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Konch, District Jalaun by the mother. The suit was decreed ex-parte. The judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate records that the de­fendant State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha have not contested the suit. The plaintiff have not filed any documentary proof about her being in cultivatory possession of the land as her Khudkast before the date of listing. She has become the Sirdar of the land by operation of law and the suit is being de­creed. Mother of the petitioners is stated to have expired in the year 1974 and the village was notified for consolidation. The plot was recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha. The petitioners filed objections which were rejected by the Consolidation Officer against which they filed an Appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolida­tion which was dismissed. Then a Revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was also similarly rejected on 28.2.1983. The petitioners are stated to have filed writ petition No. 135 of 1984 against the orders of the Consolida­tion Authorities wherein an interim order has been granted. Because of the order of the Consolidation Authorities, proceedings under section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were undertaken and allotment of the land was made in favour of one Chandra Bhan. Petitioners, therefore, approached the Collector under section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for cancellation of the Patta. This objection of the petitioners was rejected under the order dated 24.1.1994 by the Collector. Against the said order the petitioners filed writ petition No. 606 of 1994 on the ground that they have an stay order in his first petition wherein the order of the Consolidation Authorities has been stayed.
(3.) FROM the facts on record, it is ap­parently' clear that the entire case of the petitioners in both the petitions is depend­ant upon the fate of writ petition No. 606 of 1994. The only ground pressed before this Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions is that in view of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in suit under section 229-B, referred to above, it is not open to the respondents to hold that the petitioners are not the Bhumidhar/Sirdar of the plot in question. Therefore, the order of the Con­solidation Authorities is illegal.;