Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—These are three connected writ petitions filed by the same petitioner raising common question of facts and law and are being decided together by a common judgment.

2. Heard Sri P.R. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the three writ petitions and Sri N.N.Verma holding brief of Sri V.K.Singh appearing for the Gaon Sabha.

3. Challenge in these petitions has been made to the order dated 24.4.2004 passed by Consolidation Officer, Sahasaon district Allahabad rejecting the application moved by the petitioner under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (for short ‘the Rule’) for mutation of his name.

4.It has been contended that the impugned orders have been passed behind the back without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5. The facts are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 52(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Rule 109A of the Rules framed thereunder in the year 2003 for mutation of his name on the basis of an order dated 20.6.1970 said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer in three cases. Vide order dated 20.6.1970 the Consolidation Officer had dire