S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for all the respondents i.e. State of U.P., Sanyukat Sanchalak Chakbandi and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh. In this writ petition on the following dates the following orders were passed: ORDER dated 27.7.2009 "The matter is quite serious. In writ petition no.32593 of 2002 an order was passed on 08.08.2002 disposing of the writ petition finally and directing that appeal of the petitioner must be decided expeditiously by S.O.C. and till the disposal of the appeal parties should maintain status quo. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner's appeal is numbered as appeal no.1885. Annexure 1 is alleged to be a copy of the memorandum of the said appeal which does not bear any number. Accordingly it can not be said that any such appeal has been filed. However, on page 15 which is also a part of Annexure 1 appeal number is mentioned as 2552 Vishwanath Rai v. Kailash and others. The said memorandum of appeal does not bear any date . It is stated to be directed against some order of C.O. Dated 29.02.1996 regrading chak no.246. Petitioner has filed an application on 02.05.2009 before S.O.C. that possession was being delivered on the plot in violation of High Court order dated 08.08.2002 (the date of the High Court order is not mentioned in the said application which is on page 21 and is part of Annexure 3). Similarly, on the same date i.e. 2.5.2009 petitioner has also filed same representation before D.M. In the said representation also there is no mention of any appeal number. Thereafter, petitioner was bold enough to file F.I.R. through registered post before S.P. Azamgarh which is on page 26. Thereafter, S.O.C. himself filed FIR/complaint in Thana Kotawai Azamgarh against the petitioner and two others stating therein that they had abused him and had interfered in the working of the Court. It is wonderful that on the one hand petitioner is abusing the settlement officer of the consolidation, creating hindrance in the working and on the other hand he is filing this writ petition also. Annexure 6 is copy of some application filed before Additional Commissioner Chakabandi, U.P. Lucknow, seeking transfer of appeal no.1885, 1895 and 3039 Ayodhya v. Kailash. Sri N.P. Pandey, learned standing counsel is directed to immediately seek instruction from D.M. and S.O.C. Azamgarh. If no appeal of the petitioner is pending then delivery of possession shall positively take place within 72 hours failing which Court will take very serious view of the matter. Meanwhile petitioner is restrained from entering the premises of the Court of S.O.C. Put up as fresh on 31.07.2009. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri N.P.Pandey, learned standing counsel today. ORDER dated 3.8.2009 Learned standing counsel has shown instructions received by him in pursuance of order dated 27.7.2009. The matter appears to be quite serious. The contention of learned standing counsel is that except three appeals in which petitioner is appellant all the appeals have been decided. The appeals in which petitioner is appellant are not being decided because petitioner has filed transfer application. It has also been alleged that order of this court was never communicated to S.O.C.. Let learned standing counsel file counter affidavit by 7.8.2009. On 7.8.2009 petitioner shall also file Supplementary affidavit stating therein that when certified copy of the earlier order of the High Court dated 8.8.2002 was filed before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Until 31.8.2009 hearing of appeal shall not take place. However, petitioner is strictly restrained from entering the premises of the court of S.O.C. until further orders as was directed on 27.7.2009. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Shri N.P.Pandey, learned standing counsel by tomorrow."
(2.) In the supplementary affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner it has not categorically been stated that on what date and in what manner the order passed by this court on 8.8.2002 for early disposal of petitioner's appeal was communicated to the S.O.C. In para-5 of the supplementary affidavit it has been stated that order of the High Court was served on the last day of August,2002 to the In-charge, S.O.C. namely Radhey Shyam Singh and Radhey Shaym Singh directed the S.O.C. to comply with the order and thereafter S.O.C. directed the C.O. that order must be complied with. However, no copy of the alleged directions has been annexed. No such document has been annexed which may show that copy of order of the High Court dated 8.8.2002 was received by S.O.C. or his staff. There is no allegation that the said copy is available on the file of the appeal.
(3.) In the counter affidavit of Pawan Kumar Pandey C.O.Tahbarpur it has been stated in para-3 that the order of the High Court dated 8.8.2002 was never filed before S.O.C. It has further been stated that when in the year 2003 appeal was at the stage of decision, petitioner filed transfer application before consolidation Commissioner on 24.11.2003. Transfer application was rejected on 6.2.2004 in default. Thereafter it was restored and again transfer application was dismissed on merit on 23.3.2004. It has further been stated that petitioner filed the copy of the High Court's order dated 8.8.2002 for the first time on 28.4.2009. Petitioner again filed a transfer application before Consolidation Commissioner which was rejected on 3.7.2009. It has also been stated that objections regarding chak carvation in the village in question had been decided by the C.O. in the year 1986. Thereafter in para-6 of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that 100 appeals were filed which all were decided by the S.O.C. in the year 2000. Appeal filed by petitioner's father was also decided on 31.3.2000 however, petitioner and his brothers filed restoration application and accordingly on 17.9.2001 restoration application was allowed.;