Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –

These three writ petitions contain common facts and therefore with the consent of the parties they have been heard and are being decided together.

2. I have heard Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey for the petitioner in all three writ petitions and Sri Sachidanand Tripathi for the respondent No.3 in writ petition no.49783 of 2012 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in all the writ petitions.

3. The facts relevant in these writ petitions briefly stated are that one J.N. Sahai is alleged to have been granted a lease of plot No.53 area 3 acres and plot no.5324 area 0.17 acre in the year 1973.

4. It appears that proceedings for cancellation of the lease were initiated and the Additional District Magistrate vide order dated 10.09.1981 cancelled the lease on the ground that the claims of eligible persons have been over looked.

5. Against this order, a revision was filed before the Commissioner. The Commissioner referred the matter to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 16.05.1989 set aside the order dated 10.09.1981 and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.

6. While the matter was pending. Consequent to the order of rem