S.N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) Although writ petition in hand appears to have been filed with usual relief of quashing the impugned order dated 6.1.2005, passed by Consolidation Officer Bareilly, a deeper delving into the grievance unfolds a pathetic picture of avoidable harassment of the petitioner since the year 2004 in which year correction application was made by him seeking correction in the order dated 25.1.1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer in case No. 390 wherein it would appear a mistake had crept in i.e. in describing Khata No. 74 as Khata No. 174.
(2.) It would appear from the record that the petitioner made an application for correction in the revenue record pertaining to Khata No. 74, which was mistakenly described as Khata No. 174 in the order of Consolidation officer dated 25.1.1989 to which a report was called for from Consolidation Lekhpal who submitted his first report on 6.12.2004 and thereafter, again on 2.1.2006 stating that there was no Khata by the number 174 in the village and it would further appear that still the Consolidation officer concerned stayed his hands of correcting the mistake.
(3.) It would further appear that after the order dated 25.1.1989, the matter travelled to Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal, then to Deputy Director Consolidation in revision and lastly to this Court in writ petition and at all stages, the mistake remained unnoticed and consequently the order of the Consolidation was throughout maintained. From a perusal of the impugned order, it would transpire that the Consolidation officer himself recorded a finding that an order was passed on 25.1.1989 as regards Khata Nos. 95, 174 and 139 but by inadvertence, Khata No. 74 was described as Khata No. 174. From the judgment passed in writ petition aforesaid also, it would transpire that the mistake went unnoticed in the judgment of this Court. The grounds for rejection of the application of the petitioner seeking correction ostensibly was that since impugned order dated 25.1.1989 had received reinforcement upto the stage of the High Court, it was only this Court which could rectify the mistake by way of modification.;