R.R. Yadav, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, who had lodged caveat on behalf of Consolidation Committee of village Ibrahimpur Uparhar, Pargana and Thana Jhunsi, Tahsil Phulpur, district Allahabad. Although, the aforesaid Consolidation Committee is not impleaded as a party but in such matters the Consolidation Committees are proper parties therefore, the said Consolidation Committee is directed to be impleaded in the array of parties as Respondent No. 4.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention in support of his argument towards the provisions envisaged under Sections 24 and 28 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and Rules 54-A and 55 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act. The aforesaid provisions prescribe procedure for enforcement of provisional consolidation scheme and delivery of possession.
(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. Looking into the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is observed that the Consolidation Authorities, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are expected to effect the delivery of possession and enforce the provisional consolidation scheme as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 23, Section 24 and Section 28 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Rules 54-A and 55 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act.;