Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) THESE three writ petitions, namely, instant writ petition, and 39180 of 2014 and 39186 of 2014 have all being filed against the same impugned order dated 3.7.2014. I have, therefore, heard them together and, am passing a common order in all the three writ petitions. Heard Shri H.M.B. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Shri Ray Sahab Yadav, who has filed caveat in all the three writ petitions on behalf of Mithilesh Kumar and Shri Anand Yadav, who appears for the Gaon Sabha. The Gaon Sabha has made a party in writ petition Nos. 39186 of 2014 and 39180 of 2014.
(2.) MITHILESH Kumar is not a party in these writ petitions and it has been stated by the learned Counsel for the caveator that Mithilesh Kumar is a resident of the village and the appellate order was passed as his instance. Learned Counsel for the caveator has further stated that his client had not been heard prior to passing in the impugned order. These writ petitions arise out of proceedings under section 9B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It appears that certain plots which were recorded as Bunjar, Marghat and Pahar were valued and included in the chak of the petitioner. Consequently by an order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation these plots, namely plot Nos. 780, 781 and 782 were excluded from consolidation operations. Consequential revision filed by the petitioner was allowed to extent of 22 decimal over which the petitioner is said to have raised constructions. This order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 15.10.2003.
(3.) IT appears that thereafter a restoration application was filed along with delay condonation application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 3.7.2014 has condoned the delay in filing this application and has fixed a date for hearing the parties on merits after recalling the order dated 15.10.2003. It is this order which is impugned in this writ petition.;