S.N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This Court passed following orders on 7.2.2007 in this petition: "From a perusal of the record, it would transpires that Arvind Singh, Additional Collector, City Ghaziabad was conferred power of Deputy Director, Consolidation. It is also settled that any dispute pertaining to consolidation proceeding cannot be challenged either in Civil Court or revenue Court by virtue of section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Coming to the impugned judgment, this furnishes a glaring example how the matters in consolidation proceeding are dealt with and decided. The matter how the officers/authorities manning Revenue Courts/Consolidation Courts are ill equipped be it their training at par with judicial officers of State Judicial Service and or the want of knowledge of law, has been dealt with in Chandra Bhan's case decided on 13.12.2005. It was clearly directed that the directions of the Court shall be compiled with within a period not exceeding one year. The period of one year has already expired with no indicia of compliance from the end of the Government. It is also worthy of notice that the matter has not yet been stayed by the superior Court as yet. The directions embodied in the said judgment are quoted, below:- (A) A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the State of U.P. to take immediate steps to create separate permanent revenue judicial service cadre for performance of judicial functions in Courts discharging judicial functions under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 as well as under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in the suits and other proceedings arising out of U.P.Z.A. And LR. Act in which dispute of title or matter affecting the rights of a tenure holder in Bhumidhari land is involved for adjudication in suits, first appeal and second appeal/revision as well as all proceedings arising from sections, 9, 11, 12, 21(2) and 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for adjudication if dispute affecting the rights of tenure holder (Bhumidhari). The qualification and appointment of members of such service shall be at part with members of judicial service and shall be imparted judicial training consistent with the standard of training of members of State Judicial Service under the control of the High Court. (B) It is further directed that the members of judicial Revenue cadre so created by the Government shall work as Presiding Officers in the Revenue Courts as well as in the Consolidation Courts whose services will be inter-transferable and interchangeable. Such cadre shall be created as early as possible within a period not exceeding one year and for a period of one year or till creation and appointment of members of judicial service whichever is earlier, the present arrangement shall continue to hold good." It may be noticed here that with the concurrence of the High Court, a Government Order dated 9th September, 1967 was issued by which judicial officers performing revenue works, were recognised as members of judicial service by creating a separate judicial service cadre under the control of the High Court. The said Government Order itself permitted all such officers constituting a judicial cadre to decide revenue cases at the trial, appellate and Board of Revenue stages on deputation with the consent of the High Court. Considering that the aforesaid Government Order itself permitted officers in a judicial cadre created by the Government Order itself to perform judicial work on revenue side with the consent of the High Court, this Court is of the view that till regular Judicial revenue cadre is constituted to begin with the work, power exercisable under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act could be conferred to judicial officers not below the rank of Additional District Judge to perform Judicial functions as Deputy Director, Consolidation. In each District on deputation by issuing a notification under section 42 read with section 44 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to that effect in compliance of the mandamus issued in Chandra Bhan's case decided on 13.12.2005 reported in 2006 R.D. Vol 1 Page 206. As period for compliance of direction contained in Chandra Bhan's case of one year has already expired, an interim mandamus is issued to die State Government to comply with the order of the Court dated i3.12.2005, mentioned above, and take appropriate steps to confer power to exercise revisional power under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on Additional District Judges in each District to be nominated by the High Court till a regular cadre at all levels is created and starts functioning. Put up this matter on 15.2.2007 along with the record of writ petition No. 53754 of 2002. In the meantime, learned Standing Counsel shall seek instruction of the State Government in the matter and shall inform the Court on the next date fixed."
(2.) It appears that against the said order, State has filed Special Appeal No. 297 of 2007. In the Special Appeal, following orders were passed: "Mr. Shashi Nandand has submitted that this part of the order is severable and, therefore, the appeal should be maintained to that extent. That is an aspect, which may be gone into at a later stage. As of now, we are of the view that it will be better that the Government applied by making a specific application to the learned Single Judge to recall the order he has passed and in the meanwhile to suspend the direction that he has given. In the event the application is not entertained, the Government may examine the filing of special appeal against that order. We do not expect the learned Judge or any other party to precipitate the matter by asking any further action on the basis of the direction, which are given in the impugned order. The appeal is disposed of."
(3.) On application for Recall, this Court has already recalled the part of the order dated 7.2.2007 mentioned above on 28.3.2007 and State of U.P. as well as Commissioner, Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow were impleaded as opposite party Nos. 27 and 28.;