Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R. C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for contesting respondent no.5.
(2.) The village where the land in dispute is situated was brought under consolidation operation by means of notification issued in the year 1976. In the basic year khatauni, the name of the petitioner was recorded over the land in dispute. An objection under Section 9 A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') was filed by respondent no. 5 and certain other persons. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, petitioner and certain other persons filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur. In the meantime, by bifurcation of District Gorakhpur, a new district Maharajganj was carved out. A notification was issued to the effect that all pending cases would be decided by the Consolidation Authorities at Gorakhpur. An application was moved by respondent no. 5 to transfer the case from the Court of Consolidation Authorities at Gorakhpur to the Court of Consolidation Authorities at newly carved out District Maharajganj. When no action was taken then the respondent no. 5 approached the Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow who wrote a letter dated 4.8.2004 to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur to look into the matter. The Deputy Director of Consolidation forwarded the said letter to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur and thereafter an order dated 2.9.2004 was passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur to transfer the cases pending in the Court of Consolidation Officer, Diwan Bazar, Gorakhpur and the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur to the Court of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation, Maharajganj respectively. On 8.9.2004 a consequential order was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Diwan Bazar. The said two orders dated 2.9.2004 and 8.9.2004 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidaton, Gorakhpur and Consolidation Officer, Diwan Bazar, Gorakhpur respectively have been challenged in the instant writ petition.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 5 stating therein that he has no objection to the writ petition being allowed and the Consolidation Officer of concerned District Gorakhpur may be directed to decide the restoration application pending before him as early as possible.;