- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 16-12-1980, 27-1-1981 and 31-8-1982 passed by the authorities below in the proceedings under Section 42-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for short the 'the Act'. It appears that an application was filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 under Section 42-A of the Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation claiming that plot No. 577/2, equivalent to plot No. 311, was originally allotted to the said respondent but wrongly continued to be recorded in the name of the petitioner. The said plot, according to him, was liable to be recorded in his name after expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue papers. The application filed by the said contesting respondent was opposed by the petitioner. It was contended that the application filed by him was legally not maintainable. It was also urged that the authorities below had not jurisdiction to entertain the said application and the application filed by the said respondent was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. According to him, the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 52 of the Act and Rule 109- A of the Rules framed under the Act had no application in the present case as the village where the land in dispute is situated was denotified under Section 52 of the Act long back before filing the aforesaid application. The Settlement Officer Consolidation sent for the report of the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer submitted a report after perusing the material on the record as well as after hearing the parties before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 7-12-1980. The Settlement Officer Consolidation accepted the report of the Consolidation Officer and allowed the application by his order dated 27-1-1981. The petitioner thereafter, preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was dismissed by his order dated 31-8-1982, hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in the instant case neither the provisions of Section 52 nor Rule 109-A were applicable. The application filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 was legally not maintainable inasmuch as the order, according to his own verision, was passed in favour of the contesting respondent on 16-11-1969. Long thereafter, the de- notification under Section 52 of the Act was made on 13-5-1978. The application under Section 42-A of the Act was filed on 30-1- 1980. In view of these facts we are to see as to whether in the present case the application filed by the contesting respondent under Section 42-A of the Act was legally maintainable or not. Section 42-A, Section 52 and Rule 109-A provide as under: "42-A. Correction of clerical or arithmetical errors.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, is satisfied that a clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record exits in any document prepared under any provision of this Act, he shall, either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested, correct the same. " "52. Close of consolidation operations.- (1) As soon as may be, after fresh maps and records have been prepared under sub-section (1) of Section 27, the State Government shall issue a notification in the official Gazette that the consolidation operations have been closed in the unit and the village or villages forming a part of the unit shall then cease to be under consolidation operations: Provided that the issue of the notification under this section shall not affect the powers of the State Government to fix, distribute and recover the cost of operations under this Act. (1-A) the notification issued under sub-section (1) shall be published also in a daily newspaper having circulation in the area and in such other manner as may be considered proper. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), any order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction in cases of writs filed under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or in cases or proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issue of the notification under sub-section (1), shall be given effect to by such authorities, as may be prescribed and the consolidating operations shall for that purpose, be deemed to have not been closed. " (Only relevant quoted) "109-A. Section 52 (2 ).- (1) Orders passed in cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 52 shall be given effect to by the consolidation authorities, authorised in this behalf under sub- section (2) of Section 42. In case there be no such authority the Assistant Collector, incharge of the sub- division, the Tahsildar, the Naib-Tahsildar, The Supervisor, Kanungo and the Lekhpal of the area to which the case relates shall, respectively, perform the functions and discharge the duties of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officer, the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation and the Consolidation Lekhpal respectively for the purpose of giving effect to the orders aforesaid. (2) If for the purpose of giving effect to any order referred to in sub-rule (1) it becomes necessary to reallocate affected chaks, necessary orders may be passed by the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. (3) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, may, within 15 days of the order passed under sub-rule (2), file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, or the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division, as the case may be, who shall decide the appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, which shall be final. (4) In case delivery of possession becomes necessary as a result of orders passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3), as the case may be, the provisions of Rules 55 and 56 shall, mutatis mutandis, be followed. "
(3.) A reading of the abovenoted statutory provisions clearly reveals that only two types of cases are covered by the said sub- section (2) of Section 52 and by the Rule 109-A. Firstly, the cases which were pending under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court at the time of notification and were decided after denotification and secondly, the cases which were pending before the consolidation authorities at the time of the denotification and judgment were rendered thereafter. Sub- section (2) of Section 52 begins with a obstante clause meaning thereby whatever has been provided by sub-section (1) is irrelevant and is not to be looked into while dealing with the case under sub-section (2 ). In the instant case admittedly on the date of the de-notification neither the case was pending before the High Court nor before any authority under the Act. The decision was rendered on 16-1-1969 much before the de- notification on the basis of which the application under Section 42-A of the Act was filed. By means of the said application the contesting respondent wanted to give effect to the order passed on 16-1-1969 when it was legally not permissible as Rule 109-A had no application in the present case. The authorities below had no jurisdiction to entertaining the application filed by the contesting respondent. They have acted illegally in entertain the said application and deciding the same in his favour. Learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents although supported the validity of the impugned orders by his oral arguments contending that the orders do not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction but failed to cite any decision in support of his arguments applicable to the facts of the present case. The two cases cited by him have got no application in the present case. In the first case, Kesho Ram v. Board of Revenue and others, reported in AIR 1972 Allahabad 360, only it has been held that the revenue authorities, who are now entrusted by Section 27 (3) to maintain the record, have to correct the consolidation entries in accordance with the final decision reached in the title suit under the Tenancy Act. In the present case, no title suit was filed by the contesting respondent, therefore, there was no question of giving effect to the decision by the consolidation authorities. In the second case, Jaggu v. Patandin and another, reported in 1980 R. D. 53, the map prepared by the consolidation authorities was not found correct in a subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff, therefore, it was held that map could be corrected by the revenue authorities. This case is also distinguishable on facts. Further, they do not support the contention made by learned Counsel for the respondents. In view of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.;