- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This writ petition is in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25-5-92 passed by respondent No. 1. A prayer has also been made for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer, Gyanpur not to comply with the impugned order dated 25-5-92 passed by respondent No. 1.
(2.) THIS is a very interesting and unusual case. It has long innings. Despite the judg ment of this Court to allot land by virtue of sale-deed in favour of the petitioner and the matter has been dismissed in Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order passed by this Court again to com ply the earlier order of this Court, the petitioner is still groping in the dark and isunable to get justice. He is repeatedly knocking the door of the Court for justice but justice has been elusive to him. The brief facts of this case are as follows. It appears that the petitioner pur chased five plots numbers 1295,1320,1321, 1350 and 1374 situate in village Hariaon, P. O. Bhadohi District Varanasi from one Rai Bahadur Singh and Smt. Deoki Kumari. The area mentioned in the registered sale-deed and the area found on the spot during consolidation operation at the time of "partal" are as follows: Plot No. Area as mentioned Area as found during in rega. sale deed consolidation operation at the time of Partal. 1295 biswas 8 dhoors biswas 1320 bighas 13 biswas & dhoors dhoors 1321 dhoors bighas 17 biswas & 15 dhoors 1350 bigha l8 dhoors bigha 3 biswas and 5 dhoors 1374 biswas biswas 5 dhoors It appears that immediately after purchase of the plots, the subject-matter became controversy by enforcement of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and the prescribed authority treated the land as surplus. On 27-11-68 prescribed authority accepted the submission of the petitioner and ordered that the disputed plots will not be declared surplus treating it to be the land of Rai Bahadur Singh and held the petitioner to be a tenure-holder of these plots. The Consolidation proceedings started in. the village where the disputed plots were situated some time in the year 1964. The consolidation authorities on the application of the petitioner ordered the name of the petitioner to be recorded over the disputed plots. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application dated 4-1-74 for preparing reference in order to get the valuation of the disputed plots which was rejected by the Deputy Director of Con solidation vide order dated 7-8-1975 and dropped the reference proceedings. The petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12861 of 1975 Bhagwati Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, which was allowed vide order dated 9-12-85 by holding that the order of the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) dated 27-11-68 had be come final in which it was held that the petitioner was the tenure-holder of the dis puted plots. The matter went to the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Peti tion was dismissed on 14-9-87. The petitioner thereafter approached the Con solidation Authorities for giving effect to the order of this Court dated 9-12-85 and it is alleged that the consolidation authorities again started harassing the petitioner by non complying the order dated 9-12- 85. On the application filed by the petitioner this Court directed the Deputy Director of Con solidation, Camp at Gyanpur vide order dated 27-1-92 to comply with the judgment of this court dated 9- 12-85 by passing suitable orders regarding the entry of the name of the petitioner over the disputed plots by 30- 4-92. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 25-5-92 has remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer to make fresh reference in the light of the observation made in the said order. In the impugned order dated 25-5-92, the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the petitioner will get decreased area found on the spot and not the area given in the sale deed. He further observed that in respect of plots of which area has been increased on the spot, the petitioner will get the area mentioned in the registered sale-deed. Ag grieved by the said order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dt 25-5- 92, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the stand of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is contradictory. The tenure-holder is entitled to get the area available on the spot in respect of a par ticular plot and not the area of increased or decreased as observed by the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation as such the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. He has further submitted that the respondents have no concern with the disputed plots and that their registered sale deeds are null and void. He has further submitted that since the matter regarding the title of the property has become final upto to the Supreme Court and if any sale or transaction was effected i during the pendency of the writ petition, it' has no validity and it is hit by doctrine of lis pendense under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In the counter affidavit, the respon dents have denied the claim of the petitioner.;