Poonam Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) The order dated 30.11.1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is impugned in the instant writ petition.
(3.) Facts giving rise to the dispute is that consolidation proceedings commenced in village Kathaura, Pargana Sikandarpur, District Baillia. In the basic year, the petitioner was recorded over the plot of Khata Nos. 297, 298 and 362. The contesting respondent preferred objection against the basic year entries. It is contended that correction in the revenue papers could not be carried out on the basis of an order passed by the Board of Revenue on 9.2.1973. Meanwhile, consolidation proceedings came into force and, therefore, necessary correction could not be made. A report was submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer relating to the dispute between the parties that objections raised were still pending before the Consolidation Officer. The matter was preferred for a decision under section 9 of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The dispute between the parties are to be decided under section 9 of the Act. The Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted a report dated 20.12.1980, which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The Consolidation Officer passed an order that since the dispute between the parties is under consideration in his Court under section 9 of the Act, therefore, there is no occasion to issue amended C.H. Form No. 5 till the objections between the parties are decided. This order was passed on 27.7.1981, which is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The order of Consolidation Officer was challenged in a revision. The revisional Court vide order dated 30.11.1981 directed the Consolidation Officer to make necessary correction in C.H. Form No. 5 and parties to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 8.12.1981. This order is impugned in the instant writ petition.;