1. Heard.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.02.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 42(A) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, order dated 10.01.2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109(A) of the Rules. The petitioner also prays for quashing of the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.1754 (Kanchan Devi Vs. Malti Devi) and for quashing of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 41(A) of Consolidation of Holdings Act as well as the Rule 109 of the Rules giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available to her under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the consolidation operations in her village were closed and Section 52 notification was issued on 04.06.1999. Under some misconceived advice of her lawyer, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 42(A) of the Act thereafter on 21.10.1999. A report was summoned from the Assistant Consolidation Officer and thereafter the order dated 06.02.2000 was passed after the Consolidation Officer wrongly exercising his jurisdiction.
4. The petitioner moved an application under Rule 109 (A), which was also allowed on 10.01.2003. The respondent no.3 filed an Appeal on 09.09.2003 which was dismissed on 30.06.2006. The order of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation challenged by the respondent no.3 in Revision, which Revision has been decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 12.03.2020.
5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner fairly that the application under Section 42(A) of the Act was not maintainable and therefore, a request has been made to this Court to quash all the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and to give liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum under the Revenue Code, 2006.
6. Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, has pointed out on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court that no application under Section 42(A) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was maintainable, however it was wrongly entertained.
7. One of the judgments cited before this Court, passed in Writ Petition No.763 (Cons.) of 2005: Sripal and two others Vs. D.D.C. Raebareli & two others, wherein this Court after considering all the law settled by earlier Benches of this Court as well as the Board of Revenue, has held that after notification under Section 52 only those consolidation operations which are referable under Sub-Section 2 of Section 52 can be allowed to be continued. The application moved by the petitioner under Section 42(A) was not maintainable even though no limitation was prescribed for moving such correction application.
8. The writ petition is allowed.
9. The orders dated 06.02.2000, 10.01.2003 and 12.03.2020 are quashed.
10. The petitioner is given liberty to avail appropriate remedy available to her for correction of record before the appropriate forum under the U.P. Revenue Code. The delay cause in moving such an application before the appropriate Court shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, as it was only a case of approaching a wrong court, which delay shall be ignored and the matter be decided on merits by appropriate authority after hearing the all concerned, as and when the application for correction is moved by the petitioner.
Order Date :- 29.1.2021 Rahul