Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for Shitla Prasad Pandey respondent No. 5, in the writ petition of 2007.

2. The prayer made in the writ petition of 2007 is that respondents may be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the agricultural land in dispute and from interfering in their possession. Both the petitioners are influential ladies as petitioner No. 1 is wife of Daya Shanker Tiwari who is Pradhan and petitioner No. 2 is wife of Kamla Shanker, real brother of Daya Shanker Tiwari. With respect to the same land in dispute earlier four more writ petitions (including the second writ petition of 2002 which is being decided through this judgment) had been filed by the same petitioners and through the same counsel, however in this writ petition absolutely no mention was made to those writ petitions. It was material/deliberate concealment of vital fact. The numbers of other three writ petitions are as follows:

(1) Writ Petition No. 1036 of 1985, dismissed as infructuous on 20.2.2005 in view of pendency of Writ Petition No. 16214 of 1991.

(2) Writ Petition No. 16214 of 1991, dismissed on 10.7.2006.

(3) Writ Petition No. 55431 of 2003, dismissed on 7.12.2006 for the same relief (word by word same relief) as prayed in the present writ petition of 2007.

3. The dispute relates to several Gaon Sabha plots, total area of which is 8 bighas 16 biswas. Petitioners claimed that Gaon Sabha on 22.2.1976 passed resolution and allotted the land in dispute to them and that on 29.12.1984, the village in question was brought under consolidation through notification under Section 4(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act whereupon petitioners filed objections stating therein that land in dispute had been allotted to them on 22.2.1976 and they were in possession however due to negligence of the lekhpal their names had not been entered in the revenue records. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objections through order dated 15.2.1985. Against the said order two appeals were filed one by Gaon Sabha and one by the Uma Devi claiming to be tenure holder of the land in dispute. Appeals were dismissed by S.O.C. on 29.7.1987. The matter was carried in revision before the D.D.C. who allowed the revisions through order dated 15.3.1990 and remanded the matter to C.O. The order dated 15.3.1990 was challenged through Writ Petition No. 16214 of 1991. The writ petition was dismissed on 10.7.2006 as noticed above. On inquiry from Court, learned counsel stated that after remand matter was still pending. This is extremely unfortunate.

4. It appears that through the writ petition of 1985 (supra) order passed by C.O. dated 15.2.1985 was sought to be enforced. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on the ground that the said order had been set aside by the D.D.C. and matter was subjudice in Writ Petition No. 16214 of 1991.

5. The details of subsequent writ petitions have been provided by learned standing counsel in the counter-affidavit and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 in writ petition of 2007.

6. In the writ petition of 2007, it has been stated that Shitla Prasad gave some application to the D.M. for removal of encroachment on 18.9.2007 on which D.M. passed order on 25.9.2007 directing Naib Tehsildar to remove the encroachment if any through police force. Thereafter, petitioners also gave some application to the D.M. on 31.10.2007. In paras 10 to 12 of the writ petition of 2007, it has been stated that petitioner had filed some suit against Shitla Prasad Pandey, respondent No. 5 in the writ petition of 2007 in which injunction order had been granted. However, copy of the order has not been annexed and it appears that suit had been filed only against Shitla Prasad Pandey, hence any order passed therein has got absolutely no binding effect upon the Gaon Sabha and authorities of the State.

7. In the s