Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Dispute relates to plot No. 13% area .68 and plot No. 1384 area .50.
(3.) Facts, giving rise to the dispute, are as under: In the basic year, the plots in dispute were recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. An objection under section 9 A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act') was filed by petitioner No. 10 Mirza Nazim Husain claiming ownership and Bhumidhari rights over plot No. 1396. Another objection was filed by respondent No. 4 in respect of both the disputed plots claiming her sole rights. Consolidation Officer vide common judgment and order dated 29.1.1977 dismissed the objection of the petitioner No. 10. Petitioner No. 10 went up in appeal be tore the Set dement Officer Consolidation During the pendency of appeal Gaon Sabha admitted the claim of petitioner No. 10 and compromise to the said effect was filed and the appeal was allowed vide order dated 12.4.1982 in terms of the compromise. In pursuance thereof, the name of the petitioner No. 10 came to be recorded in the revenue records. Petitioners No. 1 to 9 purchased the land m dispute from petitions No. 10 vide registered sale deed dated 9.8.1982 and their names also came to be recorded on 27.12.1982. Objection filed by respondent No. 4, Smt. Shiv Devi in respect of plots in dispute was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.8.1983. Petitioners No. 1 to 9 moved an application to recall the order dated 16.8.1983 on the ground that they had purchased the property. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.7.1983 allowed the recall application and set aside the order dated 16.3.1983 passed in favour of respondent No. 4 on the ground that it was ex parte. Application filed by respondent No. 4 to recall the order dated 23.7.1983 was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 22.11.1985. Thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of the Gaon Sabha by District Government Counsel (Revenue) before the Settlement Officer Consolidation to recall the order dated 12.4.1982 passed in favour of respondent No. 10. Settlement Officer Consolidation without any notice to petitioner No. 10 or to other petitioners allowed the said application on 23.2.1987. Petitioner No. 10 moved an application to recall the order dated 23.2.1987 which was allowed vide order dated 21.9.1988. The dispute travelled to Deputy Director of Consolidation in the form of three revisions. Two revisions were filed by respondent No. 4 Smt. Shiv Devi one challenging the order dated 22.11.1985 dismissing her application to recall the order dated 23.7.1983 passed by the Consolidation Officer another revision was filed by her challenging the order dated 12.4.1982 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation deciding the appeal filed by petitioner No. 10 on the basis of compromise between him and Gaon Sabha and another revision was filed by Gaon Sabha against the order dated 21.9.1988 allowing the application filed by petitioner No. 10 to recall the order dated 23.2.1987. In the meantime, the respondents No. 5 to 7 also moved an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation claiming chak-road and chak-nali. All the revisions and applications were consolidated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. A transfer application was moved by respondents No. 4 to 7 seeking transfer of the case from the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Padrauna. District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Padrauna summoned the record from the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Padrauna to himself and proceeded with the case on merits. Petitioner No. 7 approached the Additional Director of Consolidation, U.P. to transfer the proceedings from the Court of District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Padrauna to some other Court. A report was call for and notices were issued to respondents fixing 21.6.1996 and proceedings before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector Padrauna were stayed till the said date. Even though served with the copy of the stay order. District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Padrauna proceeded with the case. Petitioner moved an application before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur on which an order was passed for compliance of the order dated 17.4.1996 passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow. When inspite of the orders passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow as well as Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Padrauna did not lay his hand of the proceedings petitioner No. 7 approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19879 of 1976 which was disposed of by this Court on 18.6.1996 with direction that District Deputy Director of Consolidation/District Magistrate will not proceed with the hearing of the revision till 21.6.1996 as directed by Additional Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow and in case the said order is extended, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/District Magistrate will comply with the same as and when they are passed. The order passed by this Court was brought to the notice of the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/ District Magistrate by means of an application dated 19.6.1996 by respondent No. 7.;