Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Sri K.K. Chaurasia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, Sri Brij Kumar Yadav for the Gaon Sabha, the respondent No. 6 and also Sri Ratnesh Nandan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 27.10.2014 and 15.5.2015 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Rambagh, Mirzapur in Case No. 64 under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules.

3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner claims on the basis of an allotment of the land in question by the Gaon Sabha in his favour on 16.9.1979. Since, at the time of allotment, the unit was under consolidation operations, the petitioner was ordered to be recorded over the land in question of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 4.5.1983 under Section 12 of the Act. A copy of this order is filed on record as Annexure 2 and its perusal reveals that the petitioner was ordered to be recorded as Bhumidhar on the basis of the patta in his favour.

4. It is also alleged that pursuant to this order, the name of the petitioner was entered in the Register Malikan but not in the khatauni.

5. The petitioner therefore filed writ petition No. 13291 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.3.2007, observing that the petitioner may apply under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954 for getting his name recorded on the basis of the order dated 4.5.1983. It was also provided that in case such an application was made, the concerned authority was to pass orders after verifying from the record and after obtaining necessary reports with regard to the correctness of the order dated 4.5.1983, which was the basis of the petitioner’s claim.

6. It is alleged, that thereafter, the name of the petitioner was also incorporated in the khatauni. The khatauni of 1422 Fasli has been filed on record as Annexure 6, in support of this submission.

7. It is stated that on 9.6.2014 an application was filed by the respondent No. 5 for recall of the order dated 4.5.1983. This restoration application was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The recall application was filed alleging therein that the applicant was member of the scheduled caste and also a member of the Gaon Sabha in question and, therefore, entitled to file the same. It was also alleged that the land in question was reserved for a play ground and, therefore, the order passed in favour of the petitioner on 4.5.1983, was liable to be set aside.

8. It is contended that the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 27.10.2014 condoned the delay in filing of the restoration application, allowed the same and set aside the order dated 4.5.1983, on the basis of a letter by the local legislator and, therefore, the same was passed under political pressure. Moreover, this order was passed without hearing the petitioner and, therefore, it was ex parte. This order also directed that the land in question be recorded as Naveen Parti. A parwana was issued on 15.5.2015 to correct the revenue entries in pursuance of the orders dated 27.10.2014 and 12.2.2015 as regards khata No. 1044, plot No. 1431 area 1.4440 hectares and 1571M area 0.190 hectares.

9. It is these two orders dated 27.10.2014 and 15.5.2015, passed by the Consolidation Officer, which are impugned in the writ petition.

10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the restoration application was filed after issuance of notification under Section 52 of the Act, closing consolidation operations in the unit and, therefore, the Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain or pass orders on the restoration application.

11. The next submission is that the order has been passed upon a letter of the local legislator and is therefore the product of political interference.

12.