Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K. C. Kishan Srivastava appearing for the Respondents.
(2.) DISPUTE in this petition relates to plot No. 109/1 area 25 acres. Petitioner made an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation that initially the said plot was made chak out and was not valued and thereafter without any authority, Lekhpal concerned removed the said entry in Form 23 and included the same in the consolidation operation. Deputy Director of Consolidation called for a report. In the meantime, the chak revisions were also pending. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 30.5.2009 passed an order dismissing the proceedings for reference on the question that allotment of chak including the plot in dispute is pending in revision proceedings arising out of Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Petitioner challenged the said order by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38416 of 2009. This Court dismissed the writ petition with the following observations: This writ petition is directed against order dated 30.05.2009 passed by D.D.C., Jaunpur in Reference No. 403, State v. Ram Narain and Ors. under Section 48(3) of U.P.C.H. Act. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that on similar facts, a revision which had already been filed by the Petitioner was also pending, hence in respect the said dispute, reference was not maintainable. In view of the said observation, it is quite clear that learned D.D.C. would also decide the matter which is covered by the reference while deciding the revision. In view of this, there is no need to interfere in the impugned order. However, if the revisional court in its judgment does not decide the points involved in the reference, then Petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the order dated 30.05.2009 (challenged through this writ petition) again. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 16.9.2009 challenged in this petition decided the revision No. 2585/3261 of 2007 and revision No. 2586/3262 of 2007 without deciding the question as to whether the said plot No. 109/1 was made chak out or not, though the order was brought on record before the Deputy Director of Consolidation hence the judgment is directly in the teeth of the order dated 11.8.2009 passed by this Court.
(3.) SINCE the Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to decide the matter which was covered by the reference as directed by this Court, the impugned order dated 16.9.2009 passed in revision No. 2585/3261 of 2007 and revision No. 2586/3262 of 2007 is not liable to be sustained and is hereby quashed. Writ petition stands allowed and the issue stands remitted back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the same afresh strictly in the light of the observations made in the judgment dated 16.9.2009 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38416 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.;