JUDGMENT :

[Dinesh Pathak, J.]

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the state authorities and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed, this Court proceeds to decide the case finally at admission stage with the consent of the counsel for the parties present, without calling for the respective affidavits of the parties in the present writ petition (i.e. counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit).

3. Both the writ petitions, as above, have been filed against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer with respect to the same plot in question which is the subject matter of original proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

4. To avoid repetition of facts and the provisions of law, this Court deems it appropriate to decide both the writ petitions simultaneously by the common order of the date. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3673 of 2022 shall be the leading file.

5. Facts culled out from the averment made in the writ petition are that property in question basically belongs to Lal Singh, son of Kadhera Singh. One Dalveer Singh, husband of the petitioner, is claiming his right and title over the property of Lal Singh on the basis of unregistered will deed dated 17.10.1982 said to have been bequeathed by the testator Lal Singh. Vide order dated 31.08.1985, land in question was ordered to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Having been aggrieved against the said order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Dalveer Singh has filed appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 30.12.1996, remitting the matter before the Consolidation Officer to decide the case afresh.

6. In pursuance of the remand order dated 30.12.1996, Consolidation Officer has passed fresh order dated 22.07.1997 (Annexure No. 2) directing to record the name of Dalveer Singh in place of Lal Singh. Having been aggrieved against the order dated 22.07.1997, a restoration application has been filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha through private counsel. Ultimately, said restoration application was allowed vide order dated 12.07.2000 (Annexure No. 5). Consequently, order dated 22.07.1997 was quashed and the case is restored to its original number. Consolidation Officer has fixed date for hearing of the matter.

7. Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.07.2000, has dismissed the revision being revision No. 164 of 2017 (Computer Case No. 2017531802000036), vide order dated 04.11.2022, and decided the entire case on merits.

8. It is apposite to mention that, during this period, Gaon Sabha has filed a revision being revision No. 165 of 2017 (Computer Case No. 2017531802000035) assailing the order dated 30.12.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Aforesaid revision was filed time barred on 20.12.2000 against the order dated 30.12.1996. Said revision was allowed by the separate order dated 04.11.2022 quashing the previous order dated 30.12.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

9. In this backdrop of the matter, petitioner has filed two writ petitions assailing the two separate orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as mentioned above.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a very limited question in the captioned writ petitions qua jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the matter on merits. It is submitted that once the restoration application dated 06.01.1998, filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, was allowed by the order dated 12.07.2000, there was no existence of the previous order dated 22.07.1997 which was recalled by the order dated 12.07.2000 and the case was restored to its original number. Revision assailing the order dated 12.07.2000 was filed for the limited purpose only to examin