Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Janardan Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Triveni Shankar, who appears for respondent No. 9 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State -respondents. This writ petition, arising out of an objection under section 9B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, the Act), has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 8.2.2002, 2.6.1999 and 10.3.1997 as also the order dated 22.6.1994.
(2.) THE dispute in this writ petition relates to plot No. 61, which, admittedly, on the start of the consolidation operation, was recorded in the name of the petitioners as their bhumidhari land. A time -barred objection under section 9B was filed on 7.2.1994 by the contesting respondent No. 9, praying that the said plot No. 61 be reserved for panchayat bhawan and playground was allowed by the Consolidation Officer. The consequential appeal' and the revision filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the orders dated 19.3.1997 and 2.6.1999, respectively. The petitioners filed a restoration application against the revisional order on the ground that it had been passed ex parte against them. This restoration application was also dismissed by the order dated 8.2.2002, hence the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the objection under section 9B of the Act filed by respondent No. 9, Satya Narain Dubey, had been filed out of enmity with a view to harass the petitioners. He, being a private individual, had no right to maintain the objection. Moreover, land is to be reserved for public purposes in consultation with the Consolidation Committee, as provided under section 8A of the Act. In the instant case, there was no such consultation, which vitiates the order impugned. Plot No. 61 has been allotted in the chak of the petitioners during previous consolidation operation as it was adjacent to his abadi. Contrary to the objection, the Gaon Sabha had passed a resolution that plot No. 68 be reserved for the panchayat bhawan and playground. It was submitted further that there was total non -compliance of Rule 24 -A of the Rules under the Act. Lastly, it was submitted another plot had been reserved for the purpose in the statement of the principles prepared. All these issues were pleaded before the District Dy. Director of Consolidation (for short, the District DDC) and were also taken as specific grounds in the memo of revision. Though the District DDC has noticed these arguments in the impugned order, he has failed to consider the same and has failed to record any findings in that regard.;