JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Krishna Singh, learned State Counsel and Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for opposite party no.4.

2. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the opposite party No. 1 contained as Annexure No. P-l to the writ petition.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to maintain the status-quo."

3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by opposite party no.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, in Revision No. 1495 (Amar Bahadur and Others v. Ram Samhar and Others), preferred under Section 48 of U.P. Consolation and Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").

4. It would be apt to point here that four revisions namely Revision No. 1485 (Asha Ram and Others v. Malti Singh and Others, Revision No. 1495 (Amar Bahadur and Others v. Ram Samhar and Others, Revision No. 1631 (Bankey Bhihari and Others v. Ram Milan and Others and Revision No. 1604 (Balai and Others v. Bankey Bihari, were decided by opposite party no. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, by common order dated 28.11.2002.

5. The petitioner and three others namely Smt. Kiran Singh, Smt. Malti Singh and Smt. Heerawati Singh, filed an application seeking recall of order dated 28.11.2002 alongwith an application seeking interim protection. This application was filed on 02.12.2022 and on the same day i.e. 02.12.2022, the opposite party no. 1, passed the interim order. Thereafter, on coming to know about the pendency of application seeking for recall of order dated 28.11.2002, and interim order dated 02.12.2022, an application dated 17.03.2023 seeking recall of order dated 02.12.2022 was preferred by one Asha Ram son of Ram Bahal (opposite party no. 10) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultnapur. On the application dated 17.03.2023 filed by opposite party no. 10 for recalling the order dated 02.12.2022, the matter was fixed for 20.03.2023, though as per the order-sheet drawn, on 06.03.2023 matter was fixed for 19.04.2023.

6. On 20.03.2023, the learned Counsel for the parties were heard and thereafter the opposite party no. 1 recalled the order providing interim protection to the petitioner and three others vide order dated 02.12.2022. In other words, the order dated 02.12.2022, so far as it relates to interim protection was recalled by the impugned order dated 24.03.2023.

7. It reflects from the impugned order that parties would heard on 05.04.2023 on the application of restoration as also on the application seeking interim protection. Reason for recalling the order dated 02.12.2022, as per impugned order is to the effect that application for recall order dated 28.11.2002 was preferred after about 20 years as such without hearing the parties to the litigation, providing interim protection was not proper. The relevant portion of the order dated 24.03.2023, on reproduction reads as under:-

^^fnukad 27-03-2023 ds izkFkZuki= ij fnukad 20-03-2023 dh frfFk fu;r dj i{kdkjku~ dks lquk x;kA vk'kkjke iq= jkecgy dk dFku gS fd LFkxr vkns'k fujLr dj cktnk;j izkFkZuk i= dj lquokbZ dk volj nsus ds i'pkr gh vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;sA cktnk;jdrkZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ j[kk fd fuxjkuh U;k;ky; ds iz'uxr vkns'k fnukad 28-11-2002 dh mUgs dksbZ tkudkjh ugh jgh gSA xzke esa lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh Lrj ls cuk;s x;s pdks ds vuqlkj gh xzke esa dCtk ifjorZu djk;k x;k FkkA ekSds