Bhagwan Din, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vishnu Behari Tewari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that certain orders were passed by the Consolidation Officer in respect with the title and ownership of the land in question but the Amal Daramad in the revenue records could not be affected during the pendency of consolidation proceedings. It is further submitted that de-notification of consolidation operation under Sec- lion 52 of U.P.C.H. Act has been issued, therefore, no option was left for the petitioner except to move an application for incorporation of the C.O.'s orders in the revenue records as provided under Rule 109 of the U.P.C.H. Rules, 1954, which is pending for disposal and nothing has been done till the date.
(3.) On consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, I am of the view that the relief, as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, if so advised, may move an application before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Banda for redressal of his grievance which, if made, shall be disposed of expeditiously, say, within a period of six months from the date of filing of the application along with certified copy of this order.;