R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and also perused the record.
(2.) By means of this application, which was opposed by the other side, the applicant prays to recall the order dated 28th March, 2001, which reads as follows: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the revision which was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation has already been dismissed on 30.1.2001 (wrongly typed in the order as 30.2.2001). The validity of the said order has not yet been challenged. In view of the aforesaid facts the present petition has become infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed as infructuous."
(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present case are that against the order dated 11.9.2000 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation a revision was filed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in which on 11.10.2000 an interim order was granted in favour of the revisionist. Subsequently, without waiting for the final decision of the revision, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present petition No. 530 of 2001 and succeeded in obtaining the interim order challenging the validity of the order dated 11.9.2000 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was decided and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer with certain directions, order dated 29.4.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer, order dated 24.7.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the application dated 24.7.1999 whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation gave certain directions to the Consolidation Officer have also been challenged. Prayer for a direction to the respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute was also made. It is, thus, evident that at the time when the present petition was filed, the revision was pending disposal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Without waiting for the final decision of the revision, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition No. 530 of 2001 and succeeded in obtaining the interim order in his favour whereby the operation of the impugned orders dated 11.9.2001 and 29.4.2000 was stayed. The writ petition was filed against the interlocutory orders. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was ultimately dismissed as not pressed on 30.1.2001. The validity of the order dated 30.1.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not challenged by the petitioner and the same has become final.;