S.N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THESE cases have been knit together for being heard and decided as a composite case with the consensus amongst the counsel on a question common to all the cases under scrutiny before this Court and also that the challenge in all these cases is focused on orders passed by Deputy Director Consolidation.
(2.) FACTUAL matrix of each writ: petition may be noticed in brevity before proceeding ahead. Writ Petition No, 53754 of 2002 Writ Petition N6. 43882 of 2002 Orders impugned in these two writ petitions passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation i.e. orders dated 26, August 2002 are one and the same. These orders have been passed in exercise of power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and relate to allotment. The impugned orders as the record indicates, were subsequently reviewed by another order -dated 9.9.2002 and a fresh order was passed by Deputy Director Consolidation. The third order passed in the series by the Deputy Director Consolidation is dated 11th Sept., 2002 by which schedule which formed part of the earlier order dated 9.9.2002 was again amended. In both the above petitions, notices were issued and counter affidavit was filed by the parties as well" as by the State. Writ Petition No. 63741 of 2005 The orders impugned in this writ petition are dated l2.9.2005 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation and dated 30.4.200S passed by consolidation Officer. The writ petition has its genesis in proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It would transpire from the record that the petitioners claimed their rights on the basis of Will after the death of Ram Murti Pandey. The claims of the petitioners were allowed by consolidation officer by means of order dated 24.3.2005. Aggrieved by this order, Smt, Sharda Devi Opp. Party preferred an application for recall of said order claiming herself to be the widow of Ram Murti Pandey. The petitioners repudiated the claim of the Opp. Party. By means of order -dated 30.4.2005, the Consolidation Officer allowed the restoration application by a cryptic order without assigning any reasons for his conclusion. The revision preferred against the Said order was also dismissed. Writ Petition No. 63949 of 2005. In this petition petitioner has canvassed the validity of order - dated 02.06.2005 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation in revision which had been filed impugning the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 5.7.2004 and 23.8.2004 passed On recall application arising out of proceeding under Section 9 -A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It would appear from the record that the appeal of Opp. Party was dismissed for default on 13.1.2004 and restoration application dated 30.7.2004 which was filed after lapse of about two years was allowed although without assigning any reasons for his conclusion and application of mind and Without condoning delay. The application to recall the order was dismissed and revision was also dismissed. Writ Petition No. 4674 of 2003. This matter relates to allotment of Chak. The orders | impugned herein are order dated 23.12.2002 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation (annexure 6 to the writ petition) by which revision was allowed on the ground that the appellate court did not consider anything and allowed the appeal without application of mind. Writ Petition No. 13384 of 2003 Orders impugned here is dated 11.2.2000 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation dismissing the petitioner's restoration application. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the original land of the petitioner was allotted to Gaon Sabha as Bachat Land and Pucca road was constructed thereon. It has been argued that the fact that number of persons has made their residential houses has not been taken into account. He further submitted that the effect of the impugned order that the petitioner will be restored to its original land which is now public property and cannot be made available to the petitioner has not been taken into account and by this reckoning, proceeds the submission, the impugned orders are highly arbitrary and vitiated in law besides being beyond jurisdiction. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the village fell within the jurisdiction of Nagar Panchayat by notification dated 6th Nov 2.001 and the provisions of U.P.C.H. Act are not: applicable. He further urged that as pucca road was constructed on the land ear -marked, as bachat land by order of Deputy Director Consolidation it cannot be restored to the petitioner under the impugned order. He also submitted that the petitioner was not made a party. It: is next submitted that inspite of the fact that petitioner moved application for spot inspection it was not considered and subsequent events were not taken into account and by this reckoning, the impugned order is without jurisdiction, which amounts to review. Sri R.S.Misra, learned counsel for Opposite parties contended that restoration application of the petitioner was not maintainable. It is next contended that the petitioner himself sold certain plots allotted under the orders of the Deputy Director Consolidation dated 16.11.1983; that the pucca road was not constructed on petitioner's land; and that allotment was without jurisdiction.
(3.) IN view of the arguments made above, it: is clear that Deputy Director Consolidation has not. reckoned With subsequent events, which may be very material for the purposes of present case. He also did not make spot inspection nor did he consider various pleadings and materials brought to the notice of Deputy Director consolidation on merits.;