JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. S.N. Singh holding the brief of Mr. D.S. Pandey, Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shamim Ahmad for respondent No.3, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1and 2 and Mr. Azad Rai for respondent No.4, Gaon Sabha.

2. The brief facts of the case are that plot No. 2183 area 5 Bigha 9 Biswa situated in Village Shah, Pargana Ayahshah, Tehsil and District Fatehpur was recorded in the name of Jagdev Singh, Krishna Pal Singh s/o of Manna Singh, Virendra Singh (Minor) under guardianship of his mother Smt. Pan Kumari. A sale deed was executed on 9.2.1989 in favour of Surjan, Sri Pat son of Bhura and Chotu son of Teja by Jagdev Singh and Krishna Pal Singh. On the basis of aforesaid sale deed, Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.5.1989 in Case No. 149 under section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act ordered to record the name of vendees Surjan, Sri Pat and Chotu after expunging the name of vendor Jagdev Singh and others. After the order dated 23.5.1989 passed in the proceeding under section 12, petitioners filed an objection under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was decided on 6.11.1991 and petitioners' father was allotted plot Nos. 2481M, 2480M, 2478/1M and 2479M total four plots area 0.142 hectare. Petitioners came in possession after death of his father in respect of aforementioned plots in the month of February 2015, respondent No.3 started interference with the possession of the petitioner on the basis of the order passed on 5.12.1989 by the Consolidation Officer in reference proceeding accordingly petitioners filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the order dated 5.12.1989. In the memo of revision specific ground has been taken that the order dated 5.12.1999 is illegal and no notice/opportunity has been given to the petitioner, as such, the right of the petitioners cannot be disturbed on the basis of illegal order which is liable be set aside. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 19.3.2020 dismissed the revision on the ground of limitation. Hence this writ petition.

3. This Court on 17.6.2020 passed the following order, the order runs as follows:-

"The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the plot no.2183 was purchased by the predecessor in interest of the respondent no.3 in the year 1984, the name of predecessor was recorded in the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on 23.05.1989. Thereafter, a new khata being Khata No.350-A was carved out with four plots bearing nos. 2481, 2480, 2478/1 and 2479. This carvation of the fresh chak no. 350-A took place on 06.11.1991. Thereafter 15 years later, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings which had been initiated by the respondent no.3 could not have been initiated at all.

Matter requires consideration.

Sri Shamim Ahmed, learned counsel appears through Video Conferencing for respondent no.3. Respondent no.4 i.e. Gaon Sabha is represented by Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. Respondents no. 1 and 2 are represented by the learned Standing Counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioners may serve the learned counsel for the respondent-4 within 48 hours.

Respondents may file their counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List this petition on the date fixed in the notice.

Till the next date of listing, status quo as of today, shall be maintained."

4. In pursuance of the inter