Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.5.2013 which was passed by the Assistant Record Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar by which he had held that the petitioners who are 23 in number were never allotted land over which they had claimed mutation. This order was passed on a complaint, of one Suresh Singh Chauhan saying that the names were wrongly entered as there were absolutely no pattas in favour of the petitioners. Brief history leading to the passing of the impugned order is that after 1992 when pattas were allotted to the petitioners or to their predecessors-in-interest and they were put in possession, certain complaints were made and on 3.8.2005 entries in favour of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest were expunged. This had resulted in the filing of a writ petition by the petitioners which came to be allowed on 23.1.2006 holding that the order dated 3.8.2005 was ex parte and, therefore, only after hearing the petitioners any order could have been passed. The petitioners who had filed their objections before the Assistant Record Officer therefore were heard. Ultimately, they succeeded and on 9.9.2010 their names were again brought back on the Revenue Records.
(2.) However, on 10.1.2011 again the Gaon Sabha and on 4.8.2011 Sri Suresh Singh Chauhan by means of separate applications prayed for the recalling of the order dated 9.9.2010. On 13.10.2011 the restoration application dated 10.1.2011 of the Gaon Sabha and the application dated 4.8.2011 of Suresh Singh Chauhan were rejected. Thereafter, now the District Government Counsel (Revenue) filed an application on 8.11.2011 for the recalling of the order dated 13.10.2011. On this application on 8.11.2011 itself the order dated 13.10.2011 was recalled and notices were issued to the petitioners fixing 23.11.2011 in the case. When the petitioners filed a revision against the order dated 8.11.2011 it was dismissed on 20.3.2012. The petitioners, however, filed writ petition no. 24225 of 2012 which came to be allowed on 17.5.2012 holding that the orders dated 8.11.2011 and 20.3.2012 were passed without hearing the petitioners. Allowing of the writ petition meant the revival of the applications of the Gaon Sabha and Suresh Singh Chauhan which were filed on 10.1.2011 and 4.8.2011. The Assistant Record Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar restored the entries of the petitioners as was done vide order dated 9.9.2010 and also treated the application of the Gaon Sabha dated 10.1.2011 and of Suresh Singh Chauhan dated 4.8.2011 as restored and issued notices to the patta holders i.e. petitioners on 31.7.2012 and fixed 7.8.2012 for further hearing. This meant that the petitioners now had to file their objections and explain as to why their names had to be continued and had not to be removed from the revenue records. Against the order dated 31.7.2012, some of the petitioners filed a writ petition which was numbered as Writ petition No. 50061 of 2012.
(3.) On 18.4.2013, when another application for recalling of the order dated 31.7.2012 was rejected, then the writ petition no. 25684 of 2013 was filed. As no interim orders were passed in writ petition no. 50061 of 2012 and in the writ petition no. 25684 of 2013 the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Assistant Record Officer continued with the adjudication of the case which had been restored by him on 31.7.2012 and held on 27.5.2013 that as the petitioners had not been able to produce any pattas in their favour, the entries in favour of the petitioners were to be expunged. Aggrieved thereof the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.;