Hon’ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 18.1.1990 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘D.D.C.’) order dated 2.6.2004 passed by the Tehsildar, Sandila on Mutation Application and also order dated 2.3.2007 passed in Case No. 18 of 2007 Shri Narayan Vs. State of U.P., passed by the Pargana Adhikari, Sandila, Hardoi in Proceedings under Section 143 of the Land Revenue Act.

3. This dispute relates to land of plot No. 101, area 10 Bigha 20 Biswa, new Plot Nos. 722 & 723 situated in village Meeto, Pargana and Tehsil Sandila, district Hardoi. New area of this new plot No. 723 is 9 Bigha 4 Biswa & 10 Biswansi. As per record the land of plot No. 101 was recorded as Pausture land of the village. Petitioner claimed himself a village member and stated that he has right to challenge the impugned judgment in this Court by filing the writ petition, as he came to know that impugned judgments were obtained playing fraud and concealing the material facts by the opposite party No. 3.

4. Learned counsel argued that opposite party No. 2 moved an application on 15.03.1989 before the D.D.C. for making the Reference under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act regarding plot No. 101 referred above. The said application was endorsed to Settlement Officer Consolidation who forwarded the same to Consolidation Officer for preparing the Reference. Consolidation Officer submitted a report before the S.O.C who forwarded the same to D.D.C. on 6.6.1989. D.D.C. was pleased to reject the Reference on 14.6.1989. It is further argued that later on another application was moved by the respondent No. 2 after seven months before the then D.D.C. concealing the material fact that Reference has already been rejected. On this Reference Application on 18.1.1990 the impugned order allowing the Reference was passed by the D.D.C., although learned D.D.C. was not having power to review its previous order. On the basis of the order on the Reference, opposite party No. 2 deeming right in him has transferred the said plot in question to opposite party No. 3 on high price for illegal gain. Opposite party No. 3 was intending to install a Petrol Pump there on the land. He get mutated his name in the Revenue Record and moved application under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to get declared the land of plot as Abadi land. This application was allowed and entries made in the revenue record. To usurp the Gram Sabha land and to install the Petrol Pump on Pasture land, this all was done. Respondent No. 3 applied for license of Petrol Pump before the opposite party No. 8 submitting the forged papers. To challenge all these proceedings, reference and orders, this Writ Petition has been filed.

5. How the petitioner was aggrieved from the impugned orders and what is his locus standi to file the writ petition, it is not clear from the contents of the writ petition. He simply said that he is village member and has right to challenge the impugned orders. From the facts narrated in the writ petition, it is clear that he himself has stated that only to cause irreparable loss to Gram Sabha of village Meeto, all this was done by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. No opportunity of hearing was provided by the D.D.C. to Gaon Sabha Meeto in the matter and also the Gram Sabha was not impleaded as party in the proceedings of Reference. This shows that the Gram Sabha could be the aggrieved party by the impugned order of D.D.C. but the Gaon Sabha has not filed this writ petition.

6. As the land is recorded Pasture land so mater relates with the Gaon Sabha of the village. Record shows that Umesh Chand, village Pradhan has reported that if the land is allotted to Merazul Hasan/respondent No. 2 he