Ajendra Kumar - (1.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner by the impugned orders dated 23.03.2001 the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Case No.80 of 2001 (Nawab Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has directed the name of the petitioner to be expunged from the revenue records for the reason that the entry itself is forged and no record of how the entry was made is available before the authorities and in the inquiry conducted the Lekhpal, namely, Sri Tek Singh has also been dismissed from service. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2008 whereby the Deputy Director, Consolidation has directed that the plot in question be entered in the revenue records in the name of Gaon Sabha/Banjar and the petitioner's name be expunged.
(2.) THE Stamp Reporter has reported that this writ petition is beyond time by three years and 81 days. THE explanation given by the petitioner in paragraph no.15 is that the impugned orders were ex-parte and no notice was given to the petitioner but when he came to know about the order, he has filed this writ petition. Learned counsel has further submitted that the recitation in the impugned order dated 23.03.2001 is clearly erroneous inasmuch as earlier in proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act being Revision No.88 of 2000 (Raj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein the petitioner, Nawab Singh was revisionist no.18, the Additional Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra by his judgment dated 15.01.2003 had clearly recorded that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner and earlier proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act had been dismissed and under the impugned order in the appeal, by an ex-parte order dated 04.02.1997 again the name of the petitioner was expunged from the revenue records. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner set aside the ex-parte orders and directed that the petitioner's name should be recorded in the revenue records. Learned counsel states that the said order dated 15.01.2003 has in great detail affirmed the allotment made in favour the petitioner and directed that his name be entered in the revenue records whereas under the impugned orders which have been passed without notice and ex-parte the Deputy Director, Consolidation has recorded incorrect findings that there is no basis for the entry made in the revenue records relating to the petitioner. Learned counsel states that by virtue of the impugned orders the petitioner's possession is likely to be disturbed, whereas the dispute regarding entry of the name of the petitioner in the revenue record has already been decided by the Additional Commissioner's order dated 15.01.2003 in Revision NO.88 of 2000 under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, prima facie, it appears that the recitation of forgery made in the impugned order dated 23.03.2001 is incorrect since there has been detailed consideration of such issue in the order dated 15.01.2003 passed in Revision No.88 of 2000 by the Additional Commissioner, Agra in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid circumstances, until further orders of this Court, petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question in pursuance of the impugned order dated 23.03.2001 and order dated 02.12.2008 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Case No.80 of 2001 under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.;