- (1.) Heard Sri S.C. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri H.N. Singh, Advocate, who has filed an impleadment application on behalf of Arshad and others 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.
(2.) This writ petition was entertained on 27.09.2006 and the following interim order was passed: Connect with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52795 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 shall have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. Issue notice to Respondent No. 7, who may also file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall take steps for service of notice within 10 days. Office shall issue notices fixing a date after either weeks. List for admission on the date fixed in the notice. The facts are that rights of the Petitioner over the property in dispute were recognized in consolidation proceedings by the Consolidation Officer as long back as on 25.4.1960. Due to inadvertence, the said order could not be recorded in the revenue records on account of which the Petitioner filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act during subsequent consolidation proceedings. The said objection was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.11.1992. The Gaon Sabha filed a restoration application dated 19.7.1994 for recalling the order dated 28.11.1992 which was dismissed on 28.8.1996. Thereafter, the State filed an appeal challenging the order dated 28.11.1992 passed by the Consolidation Officer which was also dismissed on 22.6.2001. It is 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 Apex Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tewari v. Kamla Devi and Ors.,2001 RevDec 689 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 an 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 today
(3.) 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 entact the entries in the relevant statutory records as it is today up to the time until and unless the same are 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. 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. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is evident that the authorities were proceeding to expunge the entries without having taken notice of and putting the Petitioner to notice in relation to the orders which are being relied upon.;