Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, Sri Rajeev Mishra for respondent no.6 and Sri R. K. Pandey for respondent no. 5.
(2.) Respondent no.7 got his land exchanged with that of the Gaon Sabha on the basis of an order dated 12.12.2003 passed in reference under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. As a result thereof, Arazi no. 377 (old no.277) belonging to the seventh respondent came to be recorded as navin parti in the name of Gaon Sabha and in its place surplus land of Gaon Sabha was given to him. The petitioner who claims himself to be the resident of the same village alleges that the seventh respondent illegally occupied the land that he had exchanged with Gaon Sabha. Consequently, proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 were initiated against him, in which order dated 13.05.2005 was passed for his dispossession and for realisation of fine. Similarly, order for ejectment of respondent no.5 from Arazi no. 377 along with an order for realisation of damages of Rs.25,000/- was passed against him on 19.11.2005. The fifth respondent did not challenge the said order and it attained finality. Despite the said fact, the aforesaid order was not implemented. The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.20523 of 2016 before this Court alleging collusion between the Tehsil authorities and the fifth respondent in permitting him to occupy the Gaon Sabha land in respect whereof order for eviction had been passed. It seems that in the PIL, the fifth respondent had filed a caveat and consequently, copy of the writ petition was served on him on 2.5.2015. The case of the petitioner is that after coming to know of the filing of the PIL before this Court, the fifth respondent filed an application on the same day before the Tehsildar, Soraon for recall of order passed under Section 122-B of the Act on 19.11.2005. The Tehsildar on the same day stayed the order dated 19.11.2005 without issuing notice to the Gaon Sabha and also without condoning the delay. This Court taking notice of these facts, passed a detailed order dated 27.5.2016 in the PIL and quashed the order dated 2.5.2016 passed by the Tehsildar. The District Magistrate was further directed to examine whether any disciplinary proceedings are required to be initiated against the Tehsildar as regards the manner in which he proceeded to grant the stay.
(3.) After disposal of the PIL by this Court on 27.5.2016, the fifth respondent filed an application on 1.6.2016 for recall of the order dated 12.12.2003. On the said application, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no.2) transmitted the file for decision on merits to the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no.3). No stay was granted against the order dated 12.12.2003. It seems that thereafter another application was filed by the sixth respondent on 8.6.2016 in which also prayer made was for setting aside the order dated 12.12.2003 passed under Section 48(3), accepting the reference. On the said application being filed, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/District Magistrate Allahabad by order dated 16.06.2016 proceeded to stay the order dated 12.12.2003 and the file was transmitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for taking a decision after hearing the parties. The petitioner who had earlier filed a PIL on the subject felt aggrieved by the stay order. He therefore, filed Writ-B No.34343 of 2016 before this Court challenging the order dated 16.6.2016. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.7.2016 with liberty to the petitioner to file application for vacation of the interim order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to whom record had been transmitted for decision. The Court further directed the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide such application within three weeks and for period of one month, the operation of the order dated 16.6.2016 was kept in abeyance. The effect of the said order was that the order dated 12.12.2003 accepting the reference remained effective and so also the order passed under Section 122-B of the Act.;