S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel who appeared for private respondent No. 4 and Sri Anuj Kumar, who appeared for concerned Gaon Sabha.
(2.) There appears to be no dispute about certain facts and therefore, for the purpose of convenience, they can be summarised as that will be helpful in disposal of matter.
(3.) The dispute relates to plot No. 159/2 situated in village Karhi, district Sidharthnagar which is admittedly holding of petitioners. It is said that the aforesaid holding is divided into three parts. Plot No. 159/1, was valued and was brought within consolidation operation and Plot No. 159/2 and 159/3 was kept out of consolidation. The claim of petitioners is that in the earlier consolidation proceeding also, plot No. 159/2 was kept out of consolidation for the reason that the aforesaid plot was grove and in any view of the matter, on the start of present Consolidation proceeding, land in dispute remained in same position. There is also no dispute about the fact that the village was notified under section 9 of UPCH Act in the year 1993 and thereafter under section 20 of UPCH Act in 1995. With the status of land in dispute as being out of consolidation for the reason if any as noted above, it appears that on 1.2.2000, an objection was filed by respondent No. 4 under section 20 of UPCH Act with the prayer that the land in dispute i.e. plot No. 159/2 be reserved and entered as Kabristan (graveyard). Report was called on the aforesaid objection, upon which, consolidator submitted report on 31.3.2002 (Annexure-2). The objection of respondent No. 4 under section 20 referred above came to be rejected by order of Consolidation Officer dated 14.11.2002. Thereafter, it appears that Pradhan of concerned Gaon Sabha moved an application before the Consolidation Officer under section 9-B of UPCH Act on 23.11.2002. On this objection, again report came by the Consolidation' Officer m which date of publication of section 9 notification and other details were ? given. At this stage, Pradhan moved an application on 21.1.2003 (Annexure-12) to the writ petition seeking permission to withdraw his objection. No order could be passed on that application and in the meantime, application was filed by one. Khairunnisha-respondent No. 5 that she may be permitted to participate in the matter and to take up the inning which has been started on the move of Pradhan in the place of Pradhan. From the record, it is not clear and in fact, there appears to be no dispute during course of argument that no order either on the application i.e. filed by Pradhan or Smt. Khairunnisha was passed. Be as it may, at this stage, respondent No. 4 filed an application on 2.1.2003 for recall of the order dated 14.11.2002 by which objection of respondent No. 4 under section 20 of UPCH Act was rejected. The Consolidation Officer entertained that application and proceeded to deal the same clubbing the proceeding under section 9-B and section 20 of UPCH Act and passed orders on 13.5.2003 by which out of total area of plot No. 159/2 which is 0-2-10, an area of 0-0-10 was left as out of consolidation and an area of 0-2-0 was directed to be recorded as Kabristan. Against the order of appellate authority dated 13.5.2003, petitioner filed appeal which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for doing the needful in terms of direction as contained in the order. Revision was filed by respondent No. 4 against the order dated 14.8.2003 and at the same time, against order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 13.5.2003 by which an area of 0-0-10 was left as out of consolidation. By a common judgment, revisional Court dismissed the revision against the order dated 13.5.2003 but at the same time set aside the order dated 14.8.2003 and thus the order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.5.2003 stood maintained. As a result, the petitioners felt themselves aggrieved and' they came to this Court by filing this writ petition.;