Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri N.L. Maurya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohan Yadav appearing fur contesting respondent No. 4.
(2.) The petitioner moved an application 25.8.1994 under section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') on which a report was called for. On the basis of the report submitted by Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 19.9.1994 accepted the recommendation and allowed the reference. Then Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Khalil Ahmad gave no objection before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of a application which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Subsequently, he moved an application after about fou; and half months for recalling the order dated 19.9.1994. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties vide order dated 20.6.1995 rejected the restoration application. Sri Khalil Ahmad, the then Pradhan again moved a restoration application on 20.5.1996 for recalling the order dated 19.9.1994 as well as 20.8.1995, this application was also rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 5.8.1997 for non-prosecution, the consolidation proceedings in the village came to an end and Notification under section 52(1) of the Act was published on 7.7.2001. In the meantime, fresh election, of Gaon Sabha was held and respondent No. 4 who is stated to be wife of then Pradhan Khalil Ahmad and elected as new Pradhan. The petitioner started raising some construction over the land and an application was moved by newly elected Pradhan on 5.10.2004 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation that application to recall the order dated 19.9.1994 is pending and during the pendency of the proceedings the petitioner may be restrained from raising any construction. The Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order dated 19.10.2004 directing the parties to maintain status-quo. the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said order.
(3.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that application to recall the order dated 19.9.1994 filed by then Pradhan Khalil Ahmad was rejected and thereafter, another application moved by him to recall the said order was also dismissed and thereafter, no proceedings are pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the impugned order has been passed by him without any application of mind and looking into the record. It has also been stated that order dated 19.9.1994 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been given effect to on the spot and in pursuance thereof he has been put in possession over the land and thereafter, the village has also been de-notified.;