BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This writ petition is in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25-5-92 passed by respondent No. 1. A prayer has also been made for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer, Gyanpur not to comply with the impugned order dated 25-5-92 passed by respondent No. 1.

(2.) THIS is a very interesting and unusual case. It has long innings. Despite the judg ment of this Court to allot land by virtue of sale-deed in favour of the petitioner and the matter has been dismissed in Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order passed by this Court again to com ply the earlier order of this Court, the petitioner is still groping in the dark and isunable to get justice. He is repeatedly knocking the door of the Court for justice but justice has been elusive to him.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the stand of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is contradictory. The tenure-holder is entitled to get the area available on the spot in respect of a par ticular plot and not the area of increased or decreased as observed by the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation as such the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. He has further submitted that the respondents have no concern with the disputed plots and that their registered sale deeds are null and void. He has further submitted that since the matter regarding the title of the property has become final upto to the Supreme Court and if any sale or transaction was effected i during the pendency of the writ petition, it' has no validity and it is hit by doctrine of lis pendense under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.