Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.M. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh for contesting Respondent No. 3.
(2.) WITH the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit. Undisputed facts are that against the order dated 29.8.1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision arising out of chak allotment proceedings, the predecessor in interest of the present Petitioners filed writ petition No. 9471 of 1979. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.2.2010 by making following observations: Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel has filed an affidavit and submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court the heir of the sole Petitioner Mohd. Suleman had executed some sale deeds and disposed of the entire agricultural land to other persons, details of all these sale deeds have been given in paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed by Ajaz Ahmad Khan (Respondent No. 2/1). According to him the Petitioners now have left no interest in the land in dispute and as such the petition has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. There is substance in this submission of the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 that if most part of the land has been sold, there appears to be no justification in carrying on with the litigation. Shri Ashok Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has responded to this and submitted that the Petitioner is still having 610 kari land in plot No. 1041. However, Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel has denied this fact and submitted that the entire plot was sold. This can be ascertained from the revenue records. However, it is possible that he is having some small piece of land in his possession and this possession may not be disturbed. Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to various paragraphs of the pleadings to demonstrate that the Petitioner is still having some small piece of land in his possession, which may not be disturbed. They are also having possession over the other respective agricultural land. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is speaking order. There is now nothing left to adjudicate the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as the chaks of the other land holders have already been carved out. All the parties are almost now satisfied with the present arrangement. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, however, in the interest of justice it is provided that the Consolidation and Revenue Authorities are directed to allow Petitioner to continue on his Chaks and land holdings which were allotted to him and were in his possession. The contesting -Respondent is already occupying his Chaks. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Interim order, if any, is discharged.
(3.) HOWEVER , before the writ petition could be finally disposed of by the aforesaid order, it was dismissed in default on 11.7.2007 and was subsequently restored vide order dated 11.3.2008. From the record it appears that after dismissal of the writ petition in default, an application was filed by the contesting Respondent No. 3 under Rule 109A for implementation of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation on which a report was called for and the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.10.2007 directed implementation of the order and carved chaks of the parties accordingly. The Petitioner appears to have moved recall application which remained pending.;