JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/1.

2. The writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:-

"(a) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.05.1998 vide annexure no. 6 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad holding the Lok Adalat at Kuchera Bazar in District Faizabad illegally modifying the chak of the petitioner;

(b) issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order as may seem to be expedient in the ends of justice."

3. By the order dated 16.07.1998, notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 and it was provided that in the meantime, the operation of the order dated 20.05.1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad shall remain stayed and the possession of the petitioner over half of the plot no. 555/1 shall not be disturbed in pursuance of the said order.

4. By the order dated 08.09.2021, the learned Standing Counsel was directed to inform the Court on the basis of record as to whether (i) the revision was heard on 17.05.1998 in Lok Adalat; (ii) What happened on 17.05.1998; (iii) Whether 20.05.1998 was the date fixed in the revision and; (iv) if the petitioner was heard on 17.05.1998 and/or 20.05.1998.

5. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today in Court by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 1, copy of which has been served on the learned counsels for the petitioner as also for opposite party no. 2/1.

6. As copies of the orders dated 17.05.1998 & 20.05.1998 have been annexed with respect to which there is no dispute, any rejoinder affidavit is not called for nor has been asked for.

7. Sri Balram Yadav submits that the facts of the case are that one Hanuman Deen (opposite party no. 2), now deceased had filed an objection under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act, 1953') along with a prayer for condonation of delay in filing the objection. The objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 21.03.1998 (Annexure no. 4) against which he filed revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953. In the said revision, a notice was issued on 16.05.1998 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad for holding Lok Adalat on 17.05.1998. The notice dated 16.05.1998 could not be served on the petitioner as he was not present being posted at District Ganga Nagar in the State of Rajasthan. The Lok Adalat was held on 17.05.1998 in which the matter was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on merits and the judgment was reserved for being pronounced on 20.05.1998, on which date the revision of the opposite party no. 2 was allowed.

8. Sri Balram Yadav submits that the order dated 20.05.1998 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. His further submission is that in Lok Adalat, the matter can be decided only with the compromise or settlement between the parties and in the absence of any compromise or settlement arrived at by the petitioner with the opposite party, the Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the revision on merits. His further submission is that if no settlement takes place in Lok Adalat then the matter should be sent to the court concerned, for decision. He has placed reliance on Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act, 1987').

9. Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/1 submits that after hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had passed the order dated 20.05.1998 on merits and in view thereof, the petitioner's contention that the notice was not served upon him and he was not heard, is no ground to challenge the order dated 20.05.1998. She further submits that the order does not suffer from any illegality and, therefore, it calls for no interfere