Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) AT the commencement of the hearing of this case Sri Gopi Nath, Junior Standing Counsel, made a prayer for further time to file a counter affidavit. The notice of this writ petition was given to the Standing Counsel on 19 -1 -1967. The petition was filed on 20 -1 -1967. The same day an interim order of stay was passed. Then the matter was listed on 26 -4 -1967, before the Registrar. He granted three weeks to the Respondents for filing a counter affidavit. All the three Respondents are represented by the Standing Counsel. No counter affidavit was filed within the time granted. Nearly six months have gone since then. I am not inclined, inspite of the persuasive advocacy of the Junior Standing Counsel, to adjourn the hearing of this case.
(2.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties on merits. The petition arises out of consolidation proceedings. The Petitioners filed objections Under Section 9 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of plots Nos. 551 and 522. The Land Management Committee also raised objections claiming these plots for the Gaon Samaj. The consolidation authorities did not take steps to adjudicate these objections. The Petitioners have also filed an objection in relation to plot No. 598 as also in respect of a well situate in the village. All these objections were not decided, but the Consolidation Officer started preparing the provisional consolidation scheme Under Sections 19, 19A and 20 of the Act. The Petitioners and other tenure -holders thereupon requested the Consolidation Officer to stay the preparation of the scheme till the objections had been disposed of. On 1 -11 -1966, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) stayed the preparation of the scheme. Thereafter in the last week of November, 1966, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) without any notice to the Petitioners vacated that order. On the Petitioners' representation he again passed an order of stay which in turn was again vacated subsequently. Then the Petitioners went to the Deputy Director of Consolidation with an application of stay. On 3 -1 -1967, the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order of stay, but the Consolidation Officer made a request and the Deputy Director of Consolidation vacated the stay order. Having felt harassed the Petitioners have come to this Court. Section 19 lays down the conditions to be fulfilled by a consolidation scheme. Under Clause (a) it has to mention the rights and liabilities of a tenure -holder, as recorded in the annual register prepared Under Section 10, Under Section 10 the annual register has to be revised on the basis of the orders passed Under Sub -section (1) and Sub -section (2) of Section 9 -A. It is thereafter prepared in the form prescribed and published in the unit. The consolidation scheme cannot be prepared until orders Under Section 9 A of the Act have been passed. After such orders have been passed, the register is revised Under Section 10 and only then could the scheme be prepared. Here the authorities are apparently going about preparing the scheme without disposing of the objections and passing orders Under Section 9. That is clearly illegal.
(3.) THE petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The Consolidation Officer concerned is directed not to prepare a provisional scheme Under Section 19A so long as the register Under Section 10 has not been prepared. There also does not appear to be any justification for the Consolidation Officer not disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioners Under Section 9 -A of the Act. That will also be done soon, if not already done. The patties will bear their own costs.;