JUDGMENT

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

In the present matter, the question of maintainability has been raised, therefore, the Members of the Bar have been permitted to address the Court. Pursuant thereto, Shri M.E. Khan has argued on behalf of the petitioners assisted by other counsels of the writ petitioners, Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Chief Standing Counsel-II assisted by Shri Rohit Nandan Shukla, Shri R.C. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Upendra Singh, Shri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel have argued the case on behalf of the State and Shri Prabhat Kumar has argued the case on behalf of the private opposite parties in Writ B No. 229 of 2023 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. Since the similar question is to be decided i.e. maintainability of the writ petition in the writ petitions bearing Writ-B No.245 of 2023 & Writ-B No.232 of 2023, therefore, these writ petitions are connected and the aforesaid question is decided by a common judgement.

3. Sri Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for the private opposite parties has raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders being passed by the 'Revenue Courts' placing reliance upon the judgement Apex Court In Re; Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil , (2010) 8 SCC 329 and judgeement of this Court In Re; Suraj Singh (since deceased and substituted by legal heirs) v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jhansi and others , 2016 (34) LCD 1860 .

4. The sole premise of the objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition is that, to decide the title dispute, be it civil matter or revenue matter, appropriate remedy would not be to file petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather a petition should be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, as per Sri Prabhat Kumar, this petition may be dismissed.

5. In response to the aforesaid objection, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that it is true that the issue in question is relating to the title dispute, but the orders being passed by the consolidation authorities, which are not the revenue authorities, therefore, the objection so raised by learned counsel for the private opposite parties, placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgements in re: Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra) and Suraj Singh (supra), would not be applicable in the present case.

6. On the next date, learned counsel for the petitioners has addressed on the point of maintainability of the writ petition placing reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court rendered In Re: Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others , (2015) 5 SCC 423 wherein the judgement of Apex Court rendered in re: Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra) has been considered.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in re; Suraj Singh (supra), which is based on the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in re: Radhey Shyam (supra) as well as the Full Bench judgement of Apex Court rendered In Re: Kiran Devi v. The Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board and others, (2021) AIR (SC) 1775, by submitting that if the order is passed by the Revenue Authority, a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may lie.

8. Referring various para