Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Vijay Shanker, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravish Srivastava, who has filed caveat on behalf of the contesting respondents. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Sec. 53 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that an order was passed with the consent of petitioner and the father of the contesting respondents whereby certain land was exchanged between them. Eight years later and subsequent to the death of father of the contesting respondent, a revision was filed against this order passed under Sec. 53. This revision has been allowed on the reasoning that the order was wholly without jurisdiction as it had been passed after issuance of notification under Sec. 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is clear from a bare perusal of Sec. 53 itself an exchange under Sec. 53 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is only possible till such time the final revenue records have not been prepared.
(2.) Since in the instant order has been passed after issuance of notification under Sec. 52 of the Act, there is absolutely no doubt that the order was passed beyond the scope of under Sec. 53 and was, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction. I find no illegality in the reasoning contained in the impugned order. This writ petition, therefore, lacks merits and is, accordingly dismissed.;