Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Dhrupad Upadhyaya holding brief of Mr. Nagendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. Through the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 19.2.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh on a reference made by the Consolidation Officer under section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 contained in Annexure No. 1A to the writ petition.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, an objection was filed under section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for correcting the area of Plot No. 2259. It was alleged that the disputed plot was wrongly shown as "Talab" whereas the said plot i.e. 2259/2 is under the tenancy of the petitioner and it was prayed that the entry showing the said plot as "Talab" may be expunged and same may be recorded in the name of the petitioner showing the area of 1 -13 -0. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection partly and allowed only 0 -19 -0 to be recorded in the name of the petitioner and rest of the area was directed to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha showing as "Talab". Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under section 11(1) of the Act, which was registered as Appeal No. 4582, before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Pratapgarh. It has been stated that the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Pratapgarh, after perusing the record, allowed the appeal No. 4582, vide order dated 12.11.1979. Against the order dated 12.11.1979, no revision was preferred. However, the order dated 12.11.1979 could not be implemented and by that time, village was denotified under section 52 of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an application under Rule 109 -A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules for the execution of the order dated 22.11.1979 before the Consolidation Officer, who, vide order dated 14.9.1989, expunged the entry shown as Talab and corrected Form -45 showing the name of Jagdev.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the order dated 14.9.1989 could not be given effect to by successor and instead, a reference was made to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, seeking direction for implementation of the order without issuing any notice to the petitioner as provided under section 48(3) of the Act. On reference, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, while exercising its power, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, passed the ex parte order dated 19.2.2001, which is impugned in the present writ petition.;