DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. - (1.)Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel.
(2.)Pursuant to the order dated 10.01.2019 certain instructions have been received by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel contained in the letter dated 25.01.2019 of the Divisional Director, Social Forestry, Unnao. The said instructions contained in the letter dated 25.01.2019 are taken on record. On the basis of the said instructions, learned Standing Counsel has stated that the land in question was notified as forest land way back on 11.10.1952 and 24.08.1991 and in such land no right of the petitioners or any one else can be said to have accrued.
(3.)It appears that the Consolidation Officer in a case under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') ordered that certain plots be recorded as Navin Parti. The petitioners moved an application seeking setting aside the order dated 05.07.2003 and restoration of the case on the ground that the order dated 05.07.2003 was passed in their absence and that it was an ex parte order. The claim of the petitioners is confined only to an area of 0.126 hectare of gata no.168 M. On one hand, the petitioners had filed restoration application and on the other, simultaneously they also filed an appeal under Sec. 11(1) of the Act against the order dated 05.07.2003. The appeal so filed was however, dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide his order dated 21.03.2009 for the reason that the petitioners had already moved restoration application, as such they cannot be permitted to invoke two parallel remedies against the same order i.e. the order dated 05.07.2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer. On dismissal of the appeal by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide his order dated 21.03.2009 restoration application has also been rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 20.02.2010.