Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—These two writ petitions relate to a common cause of action for quashing of the order passed by the District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby the said authority in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 27.9.2007, has disposed of the representation filed by the respondent No. 2 Ajay Kumar Singh with a direction to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to proceed with the consolidation operations afresh from the stage of preparation of statement of principles, in so far as it relates to valuation of plots and proposals of allotment without effecting the decisions already taken in relation to the dispute of title.

2. The petitioners in both these writ petitions are the the tenure holders of Village Nuwan Pargana and Tahsil Anamat District Varanasi who have come up assailing the orders on the ground that the order impugned is against the records and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons and that the District Magistrate while exercising powers of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has travelled beyond his jurisdiction by reviewing the earlier orders on account of illegal political pressures and to the detriment of the marginal farmers specially the Scheduled Caste and other oppressed classes. In effect the contention is that the consolidation operations that had almost attained finality was being impeded at the instance of land Mafias including the respondent No. 2 to the detriment of the tenure holders at large. The impugned order being motivated and malafide also deserves to be set aside as no procedure prescribed in law has been followed for the exercise of such powers. It is urged that through an administrative fiat, the Collector has proceeded to exercise his purported powers under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 without adhering to the principles that are applicable for the exercise of such powers. It is, therefore submitted that the orders passed by the District Magistrate on 7.9.2009 as also the order dated 28.2.2008 recalling the earlier order be quashed.

3. Sri S.K.Pandey was heard for the petitioner and Sri J.P.Sharma has raised his submissions on behalf of Ajay Kumar Singh and the learned standing counsel for the State authority.

4. Affidavits have been brought on record from both the sides including the State and the matter has been heard finally with the consent of the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the consolidation operations had reached the level of final allotment of chak and the persons aggrieved by such allotments have filed appeals which have also been disposed of and a few revisions were pending including that filed by the contesting respondent Ajay Kumar Singh. It is therefore submitted that there was no occasion to intervene and set aside the consolidation operations reverting them back to the stage of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and preparation of statement of principles.

6. Learned counsel contends that all actions taken and exercised annulling the proceedings as aforesaid are unjustified under the garb of the judgment of the High Court dated 27.9.2007 in Writ Petition No. 47530 of 2007. Learned counsel contends that this Court in the aforesaid judgment did not issue a command for cancellation of the proceedings up to a particular stage and there was no material so as to warrant any such exercise of power by the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the reports submitted from time to time to contend that the land was available for consolidation to the tune of 57% in the Village and the alleged irregularity if any was subject to a judicial process as provided for under the Act itself. The aggrieved tenure holders have already adopted the said process including the contesting respondent and hence there was no occasion to set aside the entire proceedings. It is submitted that the valuation of the land having increased on acco