Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Inspite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondents.
(2.) The facts are that an objection filed by respondent No. 3 under section 9 (b) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 18.12.1992. Thereafter, petitioners moved an application to recall the same which was allowed and the said order was recalled on 9.4.1996. Thereafter, Consolidation Officer after hearing dispute between the parties on merits vide order dated 11.6.1996 dismissed the objection filed by respondent No. 3. The said order became final as it was not challenged. Petitioners moved an application dated 22.7.2004 for correction of the entries in CH Form 45 in accordance with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. A report was call for and reference was forwarded by the Consolidation Officer to the Settlement Officer Consolidation who in turn forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 28.9.2005 rejected the reference and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that Notification under section 52 of the Act has been issued. Aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction and has wrongly rejected the reference on the ground that Notification under section 52 of the Act has been published. It has further been urged that the order passed prior to issuance of notification under section 52 of the Act can be given effect to even after the said notification has been issued. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Brij Bir Singh v. Deputy Director of' Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar, 1987 RD 66, wherein it has been observed as under : "....Under these circumstances, even after the close of consolidation operation an application for correction of papers was moved seeking effect of the order which became final, the prayer in that application could be granted only by making a reference particularly when the consolidation authorities were actually functioning the area as provided under Rule 109-A. In case the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not functioning in the area or in the District, his power would then be exercised by the Assistant Director or some other appropriate revenue authority. But as in the instant case the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) directed the Consolidation Officer to submit a reference purporting to be a reference under section 48 (3) of the Act, don't find that there was any mistake or error in that order.";