Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) These connected writ petitions raising common question of law and facts are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) Heard Sri A.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40245 of 1998 and 6245 of 1999, Sri S.S. Tripathi appearing for petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36769 of 2007, learned Standing Counsel and Sri V.K. Singh appearing for Gaon Sabha.
(3.) Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under: Kedar petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36769 of 2007 finding that the names of various tenure holders of the village were fraudulently recorded over 'Naveenparti', 'banjar', 'ponds' and other public utility land belonging to Gaon Sabha made an application before the Consolidation Officer for expunging the said entries and to restore the entry of Gaon Sabha. He also made a complaint in this regard to the Collector, Gorakhpur who got the enquiry conducted by Tehsildar. A report dated 21.10.1997 was submitted by the Tehsildar recommending to expunge the fraudulent entries over the land of Gaon Sabha. Collector accepted the report and forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to undertake proceedings and to correct the entries under section 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act'). Deputy Director of Consolidation exercising powers conferred by the said section read with section 11-C of the Act passed an order to expunge the entries. Some such persons whose names were directed to be expunged by the said order approached this Court by filing writ petitions No. 40245 of 1998 and 6245 of 1999. Main ground of challenge to the order dated 29.10.1997 was that it was passed ex parte without any notice or opportunity of hearing and that they had been continuing in possession over the land in dispute since prior to Zamindari and being member of Scheduled Caste perfected rights in accordance with the provisions of section 123 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This Court while entertaining the said two writ petitions called for counter affidavit and stayed the effect and operation of the impugned orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;