ALOK SINGH,J. - (1.) Since in both the petitions common/identical questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, both the petitions are being heard and decided together by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) For the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No.10027 of 2008 are being taken as a leading case to understand the controversy.
(3.) Undisputedly, in the village consolidation operation was carried out and was finalised way back in 1999. Respondent No.4 also participated in the consolidation proceedings. Sugan Chand and others predecessor-in-interest of Suresh Kumar-petitioner were allotted and put in possession of the property in dispute by completing the demarcation on the spot. Petitioner has purchased the share of Sugan Chand vide sale deed dated 27.9.2005. Petitioner is in continuous possession of the property in dispute. Om Parkash-respondent No.4 first of all mortgaged his share in favour of Mathoram on 19.4.2005 and thereafter Mathoram has executed one sale deed in favour of Smt. Rakha wife of respondent No.4 on 26.10.2005. Om Parkash-respondent No.4 being husband of Smt. Rekha filed an appeal under Section 21(3) of the Consolidation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Settlement Officer alleging that he has purchased land of Sr. No.110 and in possession of the land of Sr. No.37, therefore, his land may be attached with the land of Sr. No.43/1, 43/2 and 110 so that entire area may remain intact. Learned Consolidation Officer observed that applicant (respondent No.4 herein) has ownership right of area of the land at Sr. No.43/1 and 43/2 and has purchased the area of land of Sr. N.110, therefore, land of Sr. No.37 be attached with the land of the applicant vide order dated 7.11.2005.;