Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of contesting respondents 5 and 6. The petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.4.1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 2 and the order dated 17.1.2012 passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby the order of the Consolidation Officer had been upheld.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that an application was filed by respondent No. 6, Harish Chandra, the erstwhile Pradhan on 22.3.1980, praying that a chak road be provided from chak No. 35, carved out in the name of Smt. Gayatri Devi, the mother of the applicant. On the same date, another application was made praying that plot Nos. 499, 500, 503, 504 and 514 allotted in the chak of Gulab Chand be reserved as Khalihan and in lieu thereof Gulab Chand be allotted chak on plot Nos. 254, 255, 256, 257, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, and 276. In this connection, it is relevant to note that chak holder No. 37 Gulab Chand is the brother of the objector, Harish Chandra, the erstwhile Pradhan. These applications appear to have been filed under section 42 -A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The objections were allowed by order dated 9.4.1981 and it is this order which has finally been affirmed by the order passed by the respondent No. 1 on 17.1.2012.
(3.) SRI Ashok Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order of the Consolidation Officer was passed on an application under section 42 -A of the Act. He has submitted that the said provision can be invoked for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors only. In the instant case, this provision was invoked for modifying the chaks proposed to the parties and, therefore, the orders passed are wholly without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside on this short ground alone. He has further submitted that a final order had been passed in these proceedings on 4.3.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This order had been passed after hearing the parties but a restoration application filed by the respondents was wrongly allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer was affirmed.;