- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "1. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to take appropriate decision upon the application / complaint of petitioners datede 6.8.2012 within stipulated time (annexure no. 1 of the writ petition) 2. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to ensure the compliance of interim order passed in appeal no. 1483/2009 (Raj Narain and others Vs. Satya Narain and Others) pending before him. 3. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of regular appeal. 4. to issue any such other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. 5. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners."
(2.) HEARD Sri K.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. It is contended by Sri Singh that pursuant to the order of this Court date 21.5.2012, passed in Writ Petition No. 24983 of 2012 (Prabhawati Vs. D.D.C. and Others). The Settlement Officer of Consolidation is adamant to demarcate the chaks without hearing to the petitioners. In his submissions, with respect to the chaks in dispute, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The said appeal was numbered as appeal no. 1483 of 2009, which is pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the respondent, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24983 of 2012, is the party in the aforesaid appeal and the matter is being contested therein. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, in that appeal, has passed an order for maintaining the status quo, but ignoring the same, he is adamant to demarcate the land as directed by this Court. This Court has disposed of the writ petition on 21.5.2012 with the following observation: "In view of aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is finally disposed of by providing that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation Jaunpur (respondent no. 2) should consider the grievance of the petitioner, in view of his own order dated 27.06.2010 and ensure that the same is redressed in accordance with law forthwith and without any further delay. It is made clear that if there is any other party who is being affected by enforcement of his own order, said party must also be heard by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. In case there is any delay, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is required to record cogent reasons for such delay in the proceedings." From the operative portion of the order of this Court, it transpires that this Court has specifically observed that if there is any other party, who is being affected by the enforcement of this Court's order, the said party must also be heard by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. After going through the aforesaid direction of this Court, it transpires that there is no hurdle in the way of Settlement Officer of Consolidation to consider the petitioners' case, particularly, in the circumstances when the Settlement Officer of Consolidation himself has granted an interim relief for maintaining the status quo. The apprehension of the petitioners is that in case demarcation is made, the possession will be handed over immediately and the crop, which has been sown by the petitioners over the chaks, will be harvested by the respondents.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioners appears to be genuine. Taking note of that, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, before giving the actual possession of the chaks to the other side, may pass a reasoned order in this regard. However, demarcation may be made in the meantime. With the aforesaid observation / direction, the writ petition is disposed of.;