Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Challenging the order dated 27 November 2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision Nos. 286 and 477 under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Writ Petition No. 3391 of 2004 was filed before this Court by Keshav Singh and 12 others. The said writ petition was entertained and an order of status quo was passed on 3 February 2004. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner claims to have filed an application under Rule 109A of the Rules framed under the Act for implementation of the order dated 27 November 2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revisions referred to above. However, when the application was not disposed of, the petitioner preferred Writ B No. 55434 of 2014 seeking a direction to the concerned respondent to decide the proceedings expeditiously. This Court by order dated 15 October 2014 declined to direct the concerned respondent to decide the proceedings in a time bound manner, but left it open to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner for implementation of the previous orders in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournments to the parties. The petitioner filed an application on 20 October 2014 requesting the Deputy Director of Consolidation to hold the proceedings in accordance with the direction given by this Court by order dated 15 October 2014. The said application was disposed of by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 29 December 2014 by holding that a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 35854 of 1995) is pending before this Court in which there is an interim order and, thus, it would not be proper to conclude the proceedings under Rule 109 A. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 29 December 2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(2.) It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 35854 of 1995 has been rendered infructuous, as the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) thereafter decided the appeal followed by the decision of the revisions by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 27 November 2003. It is urged that in such circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in not proceeding to decide the application under Rule 109 A.
(3.) Though, it is being contended that interim order dated 12 December 1995 in Writ Petition No. 35854 of 1995 has been rendered infructuous, but it appears from the facts stated in the writ petition that against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27 November 2003, Writ Petition No. 3391 of 2004 was filed before this Court in which by an order dated 3 February 2004, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Subsequently, by an order dated 26 November 2012, the writ petition has been dismissed in respect of the petitioner Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 11 and the stay order granted earlier has also been vacated. However, the writ petition at the instance of other petitioners is still pending. Thus, the order dated 27 November 2003 of which the petitioner is seeking implementation has yet not attained finality. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29 December 2014. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Deputy Director of Consolidation with a fresh application bringing to his notice the fact that the interim order granted by this Court on 3 February 2004 in Writ Petition No. 3391 of 2004 was vacated by order dated 26 November 2012. It shall also be open to the petitioner to point out that the interim order granted earlier on 12 December 1995 in Writ Petition No. 35854 of 1995 has been rendered infructuous in view of the decision of the appeal and the revisions on merit. In the event, any such application is filed, the first respondent shall have due regard to the said application.;