JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 6, Mr. Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.7 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in Writ-B No.3894 of 2024. 2. Heard Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in Writ-B No.3336 of 2024. 3. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot of Khata Nos.73 & 74 situated in Village- Chakdaud, Tahsil- Sahjanwa, District- Gorakhpur. Against the the basic year entry of plot in question one objection was filed by Raj Kumari and Raj Kishori under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") in respect to khata no.74 for expunging the name of Parasuram, Lalu & Chokat, the predecessor in interest of Suresh Singh. Another objection was filed by Parasuram, Lalu & Chokat for expunging the name of Raj Kumari and Raj Kishori daughters of Nirmal Singh in respect to khata no.73. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.12.2003 allowed the objection filed by Raj Kumari and Raj Kishori with respect to khata no.74. Against the order dated 24.12.2003 heirs of Parasuram, Lalu & Chokat filed a time barred restoration application on 23.10.2007 before the Consolidation Officer which was dismissed vide order dated 19.1.2011. In respect to khata no.73, Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.6.1990 allowed the objection filed by Parasuram, Lal & Chokat, accordingly, Raj Kumari & Raj Kishori filed restoration application on 10.9.1990 for recalling the order dated 28.6.1990. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.3.1991 allowed the application and set aside the order dated 28.6.1990. Against the order dated 20.3.1991 passed by the Consolidation Officer, a time barred appeal was filed by legal heir of Lalu & Chokat, namely, Suresh Singh which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 7.3.2005. Suresh Singh and others filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order dated 20.3.1991 and 7.3.2005. The aforementioned revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17.3.2008. Suresh Singh and others filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order dated 20.3.1991 and 7.3.2005. The aforementioned revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17.3.2008. Correction application filed on behalf of Raj Kumari & Raj Kishori in respect to revisional order dated 17.3.2008 was allowed on 4.6.2008 making necessary correction in the order dated 17.3.2008. Against the order dated 4.6.2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Suresh Singh and Others filed a Writ-B No.36480 of 2008. The aforementioned Writ- B No.36480 of 2008 was heard finally by this Court and vide order dated 4.9.2014 the writ petition was allowed setting aside the order dated 4.6.2008 and matter was sent back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the objections of Suresh and Others as well as objection / cross objection filed by other parties in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order dated 4.9.2014 passed by this Court, the proceeding was started before the Consolidation Officer. In the aforementioned proceeding, an impleadment application dated 3.1.2018 was filed on behalf of Birendra Yadav and 11 others to implead them in the proceeding as plot in question has been purchased by them on the basis of registered sale deed dated 11.2.2002 & 21.4.2003. The aforementioned impleadment application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.2.2018 and fixed the proceeding for evidence of the parties. Consolidation Officer heard the objections on merit and dismissed the objection vide order dated 11.1.2019 filed by Suresh Singh and others with respect to khata no.73 maintaining the basic year entry of the khata no.73. Against the order dated 11.1.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed by Suresh Singh before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In respect to Khata no.74, Suresh Singh filed a highly time barred appeal on 5.11.2018 against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 19.1.2011. The aforementioned appeals filed by Suresh Singh was consolidated by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and after considering the evidence on record, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 31.12.2020. Suresh Singh filed two revisions being Revision No.1017 of 2021 & 1018 of 2021 before Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 31.12.2020 and order dated 11.1.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer. During pendency of the aforementioned revision Birendra Yadav and others have filed impleadment application dated 11.5.2022. Suresh Singh filed two revisions being Revision No.1017 of 2021 & 1018 of 2021 before Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 31.12.2020 and order dated 11.1.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer. During pendency of the aforementioned revision Birendra Yadav and others have filed impleadment application dated 11.5.2022. Against the aforementioned impleadment application dated 11.5.2022 Raj Kumari and others have filed their objection. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 11.5.2022 disposed of the impleadment application permitting the Birendra Yadav and others for doing necessary pairvi in pending revision. Hence Writ-B No.3336 of 2024 has been filed with laches of about 574 days in filing the writ petition for the following relief: “issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur in Revision No.0019/2021/864, Computerized Case No.2021530531000019 (Suresh Singh vs. Raj Kumari and Others) (contained in Annexure No.A) to this writ petition.” 4. The aforementioned pending revisions were heard together by Deputy Director of Consolidation and vide order dated 21.11.2023 both the aforementioned revisions filed by Suresh Singh were allowed setting aside the orders dated 31.12.2020 and 11.1.2019 and matter was sent back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding afresh within period of four months. Writ-B No.4095 of 2023 filed by Raj Kumari and three others against the revisional order dated 21.11.2023 was allowed vide order dated 12.12.2023 setting aside the order dated 21.11.2023 and remitting the matter back before Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the proceeding afresh rather to remand the matter back before Consolidation Officer. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 12.12.2023, proceeding of revision were started before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Suresh Singh filed an application in both the revisions on 26.4.2024 for withdrawal of the revisions preferred by him. Suresh Singh filed a Writ- B No.2878 of 2024 before this Court for mandamus directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the application dated 26.4.2024, accordingly, this Court vide order dated 26.7.2024 disposed of the Writ- B No.2878 of 2024 directing Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass appropriate order on the pending withdrawal application within period of 15 days. Suresh Singh filed a Writ- B No.2878 of 2024 before this Court for mandamus directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the application dated 26.4.2024, accordingly, this Court vide order dated 26.7.2024 disposed of the Writ- B No.2878 of 2024 directing Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass appropriate order on the pending withdrawal application within period of 15 days. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 26.7.2024, Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 10.9.2024 dismissed the withdrawal application, hence this Writ-B No.3894 of 2024 filed by Suresh Singh for the following relief: “i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.9.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur in Revision No.883 (Computerized Case No.202354053100001931) (Suresh Vs. Raj Kumari) (Contained in Annexure No.7 to this writ petition.” 5. This Court in Writ- B No.3336 of 2024 has passed the order dated 29.8.2024, which runs as under: "1. Instant writ petition has been filed on 22.08.2024 at a belated stage assailing the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby impleadment application moved by respondent nos. 3 to 10 on the basis of registered sale deeds has been allowed with an observation that it will not affect the title of the parties as involved in the matter. 2. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are represented through learned Standing Counsel. 3. Let notices be issued to respondent nos. 3 to 11, fixing 22.10.2024 as the date. In the meantime, parties shall exchange their respective affidavits, if any. 4. Interim order in the instant writ petition may be considered after exchange of affidavits between the parties." 6. In Writ- B No.3894 of 2024, an interim order was passed on 25.10.2024. On 23.11.2024 another order was passed, which runs as under: "1. Heard Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 6, Mr. Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the pending title revision, petitioner has filed an application for dismissing the revision as withdrawn, which has been rejected under the impugned order in arbitrary manner. He submitted that impugned order be set aside and pending title revision be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the facts mentioned in the application. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the pending title revision, petitioner has filed an application for dismissing the revision as withdrawn, which has been rejected under the impugned order in arbitrary manner. He submitted that impugned order be set aside and pending title revision be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the facts mentioned in the application. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this court reported in 1966 0 AIR (All) 318 Raisa Sultana Begum Vs. Abdul Qadir in support of his argument. 3. Mr. Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 submitted that the petitioner has executed a registered sale deed on 11.02.2003 and 22.04.2003 in favour of respondent Nos. 7 to 14 as such petitioner cannot maintain the withdrawal application in the pending revision. He submitted that impleadment application filed by respondent Nos. 7 to 14 before Consolidation Officer, was rejected vide order dated 27.02.2018 but in revision, the order was passed on 28.10.2022 by which respondent Nos. 7 to 14 were permitted to pursue proceeding of the revision filed by the petitioner Suresh Singh as such the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected the petitioner's application to dismiss the revision as withdrawn. He submitted that Civil Suit No. 197 of 2003 filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for cancellation of sale deed dated 11.02.2003 and 22.04.2003 has been dismissed by trial court vide judgment and decree dated 07.05.2012. He placed reliance upon the following judgments of Apex Court in support of his argument:- i. Jayaram Mudaliar Vs. Ayyaswami And Ors reported in 1972 (2) SCC 200; ii. Sm. Saila Bala Dassi Vs. Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Another reported in AIR 1958 Supreme Court 394; iii. T.G. Ashok Kumar Vs. Govindammal & Anr reported in 2010 (14) SCC 370; iv. Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr Vs. Farida Khatoon & Anr reported in 2005 (11) SCC 403; v. Raj Kumar Vs. Sardari Lal reported in 2004 (2) SCC 601 ; vi. Hardev Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh (Dead) by Lrs reported in 2007 (2) SCC 404. 4. Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 submitted that the application filed by the petitioner in the title revision has been illegally rejected. Sardari Lal reported in 2004 (2) SCC 601 ; vi. Hardev Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh (Dead) by Lrs reported in 2007 (2) SCC 404. 4. Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 submitted that the application filed by the petitioner in the title revision has been illegally rejected. He submitted that the petitioner was not recorded in the revenue record over the plot in question as such he cannot execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 7. He submitted that sale deed executed by the petitioner cannot be relied upon and the application filed by the petitioner to dismiss the revision should be allowed by the revisional court. He further submitted that against the order dated 28.10.2022, petitioner has preferred Writ B No. 3336 of 2024, which is pending before this Court. 5. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, put up this matter as fresh on 02.12.2024 at 03:00 P.M. along with the records of Writ B No. 3336 of 2024. 6. Interim order, granted earlier, shall remain operative till the next date of listing." 7. Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ- B No.3894 of 2024 submitted that the petitioner has filed the revision against the order of consolidation authorities. He further submitted that considering the entire aspect of the matter petitioner filed withdrawal application as revisionist of both the revision but Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally rejected the withdrawal application filed by the petitioner. He further submitted that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s withdrawal application should be set aside and withdrawal application filed by the petitioner be allowed as well as pending revision be dismissed as withdrawn. 8. Mr. Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.7 submitted that the withdrawal application filed by the petitioner- Suresh Singh has been rightly rejected under the impugned order. He further submitted that the registered sale deed has been executed in favour of respondent no.7 and others in respect to the plot in question, as such, their claim cannot be ignored in view of the ratio of law down by this Court as well Apex Court from time to time. He further submitted that necessary judgments have already been cited before the Court on 23.11.2024, which is mentioned in the order itself. He further submitted that necessary judgments have already been cited before the Court on 23.11.2024, which is mentioned in the order itself. He further submitted that vide earlier order dated 28.10.2022, the right of the vendees, namely, Birendra Yadav and others were protected, as such, there is no illegality in the order rejecting the withdrawal application filed by the petitioner- Suresh Singh. He next submitted that both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and necessary direction be issued for expeditious disposal of pending revision on merit in accordance with law. He further submitted that Writ- B No.3336 of 2024 filed against the order dated 28.10.2022 cannot be entertained as petitioners of Writ- B No.3336 of 2024 have already filed Writ- B No.4095 of 2023 against the remand order dated 21.11.2023 but at that time there was no challenge by Raj Kumari and others against the order dated 28.10.2022, as such, Raj Kumari & others cannot challenge the order dated 28.10.2022 in 2024. He further submitted that Writ- B No.3336 of 2024 filed by Raj Kumari and others be dismissed. 9. Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ-B No.3336 of 2024 submitted that the sale deed alleged to be executed in favour of Birendra Yadav and others cannot be relied upon as the vendor was not recorded at the relevant point of time over the plot in question. He further submitted that the impleadment application on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed in favour of Birendra Yadav and others was already rejected by the Consolidation Officer, as such, Birendra Yadav and others cannot file fresh impleadment application before Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further submitted that the order dated 28.10.2022 is wholly illegal by which the right has been given to Birendra Yadav and others to do the necessary pairvi in the pending revisions. He further submitted that the revisionist of the pending revision have rightly filed the application for withdrawal of their revisions but Deputy Director has illegally rejected the application under the order dated 10.9.2024. He further submitted that the objection and appeals filed by Suresh Singh have already dismissed by the consolidation authorities, accordingly, the withdrawal application was filed by the Suresh Singh for withdrawal of their revisions but the same has been illegally rejected under the impugned order. He further submitted that the objection and appeals filed by Suresh Singh have already dismissed by the consolidation authorities, accordingly, the withdrawal application was filed by the Suresh Singh for withdrawal of their revisions but the same has been illegally rejected under the impugned order. He submitted that Writ- B No.3336 of 2024 be allowed and order dated 28.10.202 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation be set aside. He further submitted that the impugned order passed in Writ- B No.3894 of 2024 be set aside and pending revision be dismissed on the basis of withdrawal application filed by revisionist Suresh Singh in his revision. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. There is no dispute about the fact that the title revisions filed by Suresh Singh are pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation. There is also no dispute about the fact that impleadment application filed on behalf of Birendra Yadav and others in the pending revision was disposed of vide order dated 28.10.2022 permitting the Birendra Yadav and others to do the necessary pairvi in the pending revisions which is challenged in Writ- B No.3336 of 2024. There is also no dispute about the fact that withdrawal application filed by Suresh Singh in his pending revision has been rejected under the impugned order dated 10.9.2024 which is challenged in Writ- B No.3894 of 2024. 12. It is material to mention that Birendra Yadav and others are claiming right on the basis of sale deed executed in their favour in respect to the plot in question. It is also material that Suresh Singh and Birendra Yadav and others were prosecuting the proceeding together before the consolidation authorities even before this Court in Writ- B No.36480 of 2008 and when the revision reached at the final hearing stage withdrawal application has been filed by Suresh Singh to dismiss his revision as withdrawn in order to prejudice the claim of Birendra Yadav & others. 13. The impleadment application filed by Birendra Yadav and others in revision was disposed of vide order dated 28.10.2022 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation with liberty to the Birendra Yadav to make proper pairvi in the revision as the sale deed has been executed in their favour in respect to the plot in question. 13. The impleadment application filed by Birendra Yadav and others in revision was disposed of vide order dated 28.10.2022 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation with liberty to the Birendra Yadav to make proper pairvi in the revision as the sale deed has been executed in their favour in respect to the plot in question. It is also material that the order dated 28.12.2022 has not been challenged by the Raj Kumari and others for the last two years although Raj Kumari and others have filed a writ petition in the year 2023 before this Court against the subsequent remand order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, as such, filing of writ petition in the year 2024 by Raj Kumari and others against the order dated 28.10.2022 is abuse of process of law. 14. Considering the ratio of law laid down by this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court as cited by learned counsel for Birendra Yadav and others, the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation permitting the Birendra Yadav and Others to make necessary pairvi of the revisoin as well as the order dated 10.9.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the withdrawal application filed by Suresh Sing & others do not suffer from any error of law. 15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order dated 10.9.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the withdrawal application as well as order dated 28.10.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impleadment application filed by Birendra Yadav and others. 16. Both the aforementioned writ petitions are dismissed . Respondent no.2 / Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur is directed to decide the aforementioned revision after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. 17. Interim order granted in Writ- B No.3894 of 2024 is vacated.