K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27-11-1987 passed by respondent no. 1 and also for quashing the order dated 8-6-1978. The petitioner has also prayed for not affecting the allotment of the road made on old plot nos. 56 and 43 which has been numbered as 28 (new).
(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner before me is that the impugned order dated 8-6-78 has been passed behind the back of the petitioner and affects the original position already determined by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) at earlier occasion. According to him, the disputed new plot no. 28 measuring 1.00 acres is a rasta according to the consolidation papers but indirectly the same is being allotted to opposite party no. 2. It has also been stressed that the restoration application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 27-11-1987 and against the latter order the petitioner had preferred another restoration application which is pending with opposite party no. 1.
(3.) The claim of the petitioner is being contested by opposite party no. 4 Maharaj Singh on the ground that he has purchased a portion of plot no. 28 (new) which has been numbered as 28/2 and he wants to make construction there on but the petitioner is adopting dilatory tactics and trying some how to hamper the progress of the construction over the land purchased by the aforesaid opposite party no. 4. According to opposite party no. 4, the disputed land is situate within the municipal limit and in this proceeding no injunction can be issued against opposite party no. 4.;