SURAJ SINGH Vs. A.D.M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.3/1 and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos.1 and 2.

(2.) It is pertinent to mention here that present writ petition is being treated and decided only on behalf of petitioner nos.1/1 to 1/3, inasmuch as, vide order dtd. 25/8/2021, petition on behalf of petitioner nos.2, 3 and 5 has been dismissed as abated as well as petition on behalf of petitioner no.4 has been dismissed as withdrawn. Apart from that petition on behalf of petitioner no.6 has already been ordered to be dismissed as not pressed vide order dtd. 23/7/2019.

(3.) Instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 10/8/1988 (Annexure-5) passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai (in brevity 'S.O.C.') (respondent no.2) and order dtd. 29/9/1989 (Annexure-6) passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai (in brevity 'D.D.C.') (respondent no.1).