Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ayub Khan for the petitioner and Sri Shivaji Singh Sisodiya for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.7.2015 allowing the revision and setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 12.2.2014 and 26.2.2014 and affirming the order of Consolidation Officer dated 28.9.2013 directing to record the names of respondents - 2 to 4 over the land of khata No. 229 which was carved out from old khata No. 165 of village Umarsiya, tehsil and distt. Bareilly.
(2.) RESPONDENTS - 2 to 4 filed an application under section 42 -A of U.P.C.H. Act on 4.9.2013 for recording their names over the land in dispute. It has been stated by the respondents that prior to consolidation operation the land of khata Nos. 129, 164 and 165 of village Umarsiya were recorded in the name of Chunni Lal. Chunni Lal died issueless as such after his death names of respondents - 2 to 4 who were brother's son of Chunni Lal were directed to be recorded by the order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 9.2.1976 on the basis of report on PA 11. Accordingly in consolidation records names of respondents - 2 to 4 were recorded over the land of khata Nos. 129 and 164 but inadvertently their names could not be recorded over the land of khata No. 165. Tarachand and Ram Swaroop alleging themselves to be heir of Chhunni Lal got their names mutated by the order of Revenue Inspector dated 28.5.2013 which is illegal. As the names of the respondents - 2 to 4 have already been recorded in respect of two khatas of Chunni Lal in pursuance of the order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 9.2.1976 as such their names were liable to be recorded over the land of khata No. 165 of which new khata No. 229 has been made. The Consolidation Officer initially by order dated 28.9.2013 allowed the application of respondents - 2 to 9 and directed for recording their names over the land in dispute. Thereafter a recall application has been filed by the petitioner on which the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 12.2.2014 recalled the order dated 28.9.2013 and thereafter by the order dated 26.2.2014 rejected the objection of respondent - 2 to 4. The Consolidation Officer by a separate order dated 14.3.2014 also set aside the order dated 30.10.2013 passed in the proceeding under Rule 109 -A of U.P.C.H. Rules. Thereafter respondents - 2 to 4 filed a revision against the orders dated 12.2.2014 and 26.2.2014. The revision was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by the order dated 13.7.2015 found that as the names of respondents - 2 to 4 were already directed to be recorded as the heirs of Chunni Lal by the order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 9.2.1976 and the order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 9.2.1976 has been given effect to in respect of khata Nos. 129 and 164 of Chunni Lal however inadvertently it could not be given effect to in respect of land of khata No. 165. Although respondents - 2 to 4 were alleged to be the heirs of Chunni Lal and no one has challenged their claim before the consolidation authorities. On these findings he allowed the revision and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 12.2.2014 and 26.2.2014 and reinstated the order dated 28.9.2013 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Hence this writ petition has been filed. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the village has already been notified under section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act prior to moving the application of respondents - 2 to 4 on 4.9.2013 as such the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of the land in dispute. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Bhunesh Dutt and others v. Joint Director of Consolidation and others, : 2015 (126) RD 525 in which it has been held that the consolidation authorities could not entertain the application under section 42 -A after notification under section 52 of the Act.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the records.;