- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. There are two connected writ petitions arising out of the same dispute between the same parties.
(2.) HEARD Sri Swaraj Prakash and Sri M. D. Mishra appearing for respective parties in both the writ petitions. The dispute relates to plot No. 1108/3. During consolidation proceedings, an application under Section 42-A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') was moved by the respondents on the ground that they are co-tenants of the plot in dispute and the name of Ram Charitar and others were wrongly recorded over an area of 7 biswa of the plot in dispute. The said application was rejected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 30-8-1979 on the ground that the dispute was not covered under Section 42-A of the Act and the same can properly be decided in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents preferred a revision which was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 4-3-1980. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under Section 9 of the Act before the Consolidation Officer which was rejected by him vide order dated 24-4-1984. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer a revision was preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed on 11-8-1992. After the order dated 4-3-1980 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the revision filed by the respondents an application was also moved by them before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation with a prayer that the final consolidation map of plot No. 1108 is incorrect and the same may be corrected. It has been alleged that the said application was filed behind the back of the petitioners. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation passed an order 'keep on file'. A report was made by sub-ordinate Consolidation authorities on the aforesaid application of the contesting respondents for preparation of a reference. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 9-5-1981 prepared a reference and forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Consolidation with a direct to the parties to appear on 20-5-1981. The petitioner appeared before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and contested the proceedings on the ground that decision with regard to the disputed plot has become final as the objection filed by the contesting opposite parties under Section 9 of the Act has already been dismissed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31-8-1992 accepted the reference which has been challenged by Ram Charitar and others in Writ Petition No. 34964 of 1992. Surendra Pratap and others challenged the order dated 24-5-1984 and 11-8-1992 passed by Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively rejecting their objection under Section 9 of the Act with regard to disputed plot by filing Writ Petition No. 38168 of 1992. These two connected writ petitions were heard by me on 21-5- 2004 and judgment was reserved. However, before the judgment could be finalised and delivered, an application duly supported by an affidavit of Surendra Pratap was moved to dismiss his Writ Petition No. 38168 of 1992 as withdrawn. After seeking permission the application was placed before me in chamber and an order dated 28-5- 2004 was passed which finds place on the order-sheet of Writ Petition No. 38168 of 1992 that both the connected Writ Petitions be listed for further hearing in the month of July, 2004 whenever I am sitting singly. When the matter was heard on 28-10-2005 Sri M. D. Mishra appearing for the petitioners is writ petition No. 38168 of 1992 again pressed the application for dismissing the Writ Petition was withdrawn and as a consequence, it is being dismissed as withdrawn.
(3.) IN so far as the Writ Petition No. 34964 of 1992 is concerned, it has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that once the application filed by the contesting respondents under Section 42-A was dismissed and thereafter, their objection filed under Section 9 of the Act was also dismissed the reference proceedings are totally illegal and without jurisdiction. It has further been urged that reference was prepared ex-parte without any opportunity of hearing. In reply it has been urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly accepted the reference and directing the incorrect entries which was obtained by Ram Charitar & Ors. in collusion with the subordinate Consolidation staff.;