- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by an institution through its Manager contending that under the orders of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation certain plots were allotted to the Petitioner-institution.
(2.) In this case an impleadment application has been filed by Arshad and others represented by Sri H.N. Singh, Advocate and another application has been filed by one Madan Sen Sonkar through Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate who contend that the land could not have been allotted to the Petitioner and the Petitioner has obtained the orders from the Consolidation Authorities fraudulently.
(3.) This writ petition was entertained on 27.11.2006 and the following interim order was passed: Connect with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52775 of 2006. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 6, who prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The Petitioner will have three weeks' thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List for admission after expiry of the aforesaid period. The contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that entire proceedings are being undertaken ex-parte by the authorities without permitting it to participate in the same, though its rights over the property in dispute were duly recognized vide order dated 9.6.1989 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the order dated 10.6.1994 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has to become final. Inspite of aforesaid, the authorities are proceeding to expunge its names without permitting it to participate in the proceedings misinterpreting the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tewari v. Kamla Devi and Ors.,2001 ACJ 1604 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Iqbal Ahmad and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and Ors.,2005 98 RevDec 580. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner is entitled to interim order. Until further orders of this Court, the parties to the writ petition are directed to maintain status quo with regard to nature, possession and entries in the revenue record pertaining to the land in dispute. The Respondents are further restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Petitioner over the land in dispute.;