B.N.Nigam, J. - (1.) Shyam Sunder Narain Bakshi has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated January 8, 1965 and February 6, 1985, copies being annexures 3 and 4 respectively.
(2.) In the petition, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3.
(3.) The petitioner states that village Bhanpur Pargana and Tahsil Malihabad, District Lucknow was notified for consolidation operations prior to the amendment of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by U.P. Act VIII of 1983. Four plots constituting groves were recorded in the name of the petitioner. Opposite party No. 3 raised an objection at the time of the field to field checking. No objection was filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer but it was filed before the Consolidation Officer. This objection was dismissed on November 19, 1981. Opposite party No. 3 filed an appeal. This was dismissed on January 1, 1962. No second appeal was filed. However, on May 23, 1963 a revision application was filed and the revision application was dismissed on August 9, 1963 on the ground that it was not maintainable as it was not pending on March 8, 1963. In the meantime the village was de-notified under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, on June 2, 1963. The order dated August 9, 1963 was passed in the absence of opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 3 moved for restoration. This application was allowed on October 14, 1963. The earlier order in the revision application was set aside and after hearing the case was remanded back to the court of the Consolidation Officer. Thereafter the Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of opposite party No. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed on April 14, 1964. Thereafter opposite party No. 3 preferred no second appeal, but preferred a revision application. His revision application was dismissed on December 3, 1984. On December 18, 1984 opposite party No. 3 moved another application for restoration. By order dated January 8, 1965 the revision was restored. It is this order which has been impugned before me. Finally on February 6, 1985 opposite party No. 1 allowed the revision application and ordered the land in dispute to be recorded in favour of opposite party No. 3. This order has also been impugned before me.;