- (1.) Heard Sri S. C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari. who has filed a stay vacation application on behalf of the respondent No. 7 and the learned standing counsel for the other respondents.
(2.) This writ petition was entertained on 25.9.2006 and the following interim order was passed : Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the 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 shall have three weeks' thereafter to file rejoinder-affidavit. Issue notice to respondent No. 7. who may also file counter-affidavit. Petitioners shall take steps for service of notice within a week. Office shall issue notices fixing a date after eight weeks. List for admission on the date fixed by the office in the notice. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that entire proceedings are being undertaken ex parte by the authorities without permitting him to participate in the same, though his rights over the property in dispute were recognized in consolidation proceedings by the Consolidation Officer as long back as on 25.9.1960. Due to inadvertence, the said order was not recorded in the revenue records on account of which the petitioner filed an application under Section 42A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said application was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, against which revision was filed which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 9.6.1994 and it was directed that the order dated 12.5.1960 may be given effect to in the revenue record and accordingly the same was incorporated. On an application moved by certain members of Gaon Sabha challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, the matter came up in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37156 of 1998 which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.11.1998 meaning thereby the Judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.6.1994 stood affirmed. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the aforesaid facts, on an application moved by respondent No. 7, the proceedings are being undertaken to expunge the name of the petitioner without permitting him to participate in the proceedings and the authorities are misinterpreting the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tewari v. Kamla Devi and Others,2001 ACJ 1604. as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Iqbal Ahmad and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. Deoria and Others,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. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours. This writ petition having been filed in the year 2006 contains the following two prayers : (I) Issue a writ of mandamus order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to disturb the right, title and possession of the petitioner over the plots in dispute well described in the writ petition, except following the due required procedure in accordance with law. (II) Issue a writ of mandamus order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondent authorities commanding them to keep intact the entries in the relevant statutory records as it is today up to the time until and unless the same are not ordered to be modified, varied or expunged by any competent judicial forum. It was further prayed that the Executive Authorities may not dispossess the petitioner by any administrative fiat except otherwise than in accordance with law.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the submissions, Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the proposed respondents submits that the writ petition be disposed of finally enabling the authority to take recourse to law.;