RAJAN ROY,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) Issue notice to the opposite party no. 6.
(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details the crux of the matter in this writ petition is that after publication of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 consolidation operations took place and 18 years thereafter the same was cancelled by notification under Section 6, but, by then certain orders had been passed by the Consolidation Authorities which attained finality, therefore, irrespective of the said cancellation they were liable to be implemented in view of Sub-section 2 of Section 6, however, the A.D.M. concerned passed an order stating that all orders passed during consolidation operations were a nullity whereupon a writ petition was filed before this Court bearing No. 816(Cons.) of 2017 by some persons including two of the petitioners herein which was decided on 25.08.2008. The order of the A.D.M. was quashed and the matter was disposed of in terms of the law declared by this Court in the case of Madan Shah and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Aligarh reported in 2007 (25) LCD 844 , wherein, the scope and purport of Section 6 of the Act, 1953 has been elucidated. Thereafter, it is said that the opposite party no. 6 the successor in interest of the original tenure holder Parbhu Narain Singh from whom the land in question had devolved to the predecessors in interest of the petitioners, filed objections and ever since then the matter is said to be pending.;