- (1.) Heard Mr.Abid Ali, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.V.S.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.4 and 5 whereas learned Standing Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1,2 & 3.
(2.) This writ petition was filed in the year 1997 challenging the order dated 1.1.1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the order dated 16.9.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the order dated 24.3.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer in the proceedings pertaining to the objections filed under Section 9A (2) U.P.C.H. Act. by the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer which were rejected and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the appeal of opposite party no.4 was allowed. The revision filed by the petitioners against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) At the time of admission, the Court had entertained the writ petition on limited issue as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising jurisdiction under Section 48, U.P.C.H. Act can impose cost and whether the order for its recovery as arrears of land revenue is legally valid. As an interim measure, the Court had also provided that the amount of cost imposed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order shall not be recovered from the petitioners in any manner including as arrears of land revenue till further orders of the Court. The order dated 9.5.1997, on reproduction reads as under: "Heard the learned counsel of the petitioners. I am of the view that this writ petition needs to be admitted only on the ground that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted without jurisdiction in imposing Rs. 1000/- as costs against petitioners and has also illegally directed its recovery as arrears of land revenue. On the other ground of res judicata the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur is not incorrectly recorded. So this writ petition will not be treated to be admitted on other grounds. Notice on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 to 3 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Issue notice to opposite parties no.4 to 9. Steps within three days. The opposite parties may, on the limited question as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act, can impose costs and also order its recovery as arrears of land revenue, file counter affidavit within four weeks from the date of receipt of the notice of the writ petition. In case counter affidavit is filed then the petitioners may file rejoinder affidavit within identical period of four weeks. List thereafter. Having heard the learned counsel of the petitioners on interim relief application, I direct that the amount of cost imposed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order shall not be recovered from the petitioners in any manner including as arrears of land revenue till further orders of the Court.";