Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri J. L. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri H. L. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents no. 2 and 3 and Sri Anuj Kumar appearing for Gaon Sabha.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under: An application under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') was moved by the petitioners for providing chak road and chak Nali. On the said application, a report was called for by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The consolidation authority submitted a report along with map. The Deputy Director of Consolidation directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer for taking necessary steps in the matter. The Assistant Consolidation Officer issued notices to all the concerned parties, in response whereof respondents no. 2 and 3 appeared and moved an application for dismissing the application moved by them for providing chak road. The Assistant Consolidation Officer prepared two references. Reference no. 894 was in respect of chak nail and reference no. 895 was in respect of chak road. The said two references were submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer which was forwarded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Vide order dated 27.3.2006 reference in respect of chak nail and vide order dated 28.3.2006 reference in respect of chak road were accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Respondents no. 2 and 3 filed two applications to recall the aforesaid orders. Vide two separate orders passed on 19.6.2006, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the recall application. While reference no. 894 (in respect of chak nali) was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer. Reference no. 895 (in respect of chak road) was rejected on the ground that the application moved by respondent no. 2 and 3 for providing chak road was withdrawn by them.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both orders dated 19.6.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal as the same amounts to review for which he had no jurisdiction. It has further been urged that reference no. 895 in respect of chak road has wrongly been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the application for providing chak road filed by respondents no. 2 and 3 has been withdrawn without considering the fact the petitioners had also moved an application for providing chak road.;