B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 29-4-86 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Meerut Camp at Muzaffarnagar, in a revision filed by the petitioners under Section 40 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act), and the order dated 31-5-85 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).
(2.) THE facts of the case are that in respect of the land in dispute a case was registered after the commencement of consolidation operation and the same was taken in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who decided the same on 8-7-1964 in favour of contesting respondent nos. 4 and 5. THE petitioners did not challenge that order by filing any writ petition or in any other manner. It appears that in pursuance of the order dated 8-7-64 necessary amendments in revenue papers or relevant CH Forms were not made. After some time the consolidation operation in the area was closed and consequently notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act was issued just after two years in 1966. After the date of notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act, respondent nos. 4 & 5 discovered that their names did not appear in the relevant revenue papers and they being advised by a local counsel filed an application under Section 28 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 with a prayer for correction of the map and papers and also praying that the order dated 8-7-64 may be given effect to in revenue papers. It may be stated that this was actually an application for correction of papers under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act and by bonafide mistake it appears that the same was filed under Section 28 of the Act. It appears that in the application Section 28 was quoted so that necessary correction in the map may also be made. This aforesaid application for correction of papers purporting to be under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act was forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who heard the parties and held by the impugned order dt. 21-5-85 that as the village has been denotified under Section 52 (1) of the Act, it appears just that in order to give effect to the order dated 8-7-64 passed by the then Deputy Director of Consolidation which became final between the parties in all respects, the dispute may be decided in reference proceedings under Section 48 (3) of the Act. A reference accordingly was sought to be made so that the order dated 8-7-64 may be given effect to. Against that order a revision was filed by the present petitioners which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 29-4-86. It is against these two orders that the present petition has been filed. Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that as the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act has been published, consequently the consolidation operation was closed in the area and there could be no revival of the proceedings under Section 48 (3) of the Act nor the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) directing the reference to be made was correct and it was open to the contesting respondents to have sought the effect of the order dated 8-7-64 only by the time the consolidation operations were not closed, and till the notification under Section 52 of the Act was issued. After issuance of the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to pass any order except that an order, passed by the High Court in proceedings which were pending before the consolidation authorities when the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act was issued, can be given effect to. It appears that the intention of legislature was that only the proceedings which were pending at the time when the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act was issued, the order in those proceedings, even though passed after the issuance of notification under Section 52 (1), can be given effect to by the consolidation authorities and no other order can be given effect to. In case the contesting respondents sought the effect of the order dated 8-7-64, they should have done so only before the issuance of notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act and not thereafter. Reliance was placed on Raja Ram v. D.D.C., 1982 AWC 437.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the view that there are no merits in the writ petition. The first point which requires determination is as to, whether the effect of the order dated 8-7-64 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which became final between the parties in all respects during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, before the issuance of notification under section 52 (1) of the Act, can be sought to be given effect to by the successful party after the notification under section 52 (1) has been issued. The reply to this argument is not too far to seek. The relevant provisions of the Act coupled with the intention of the legislature in enacting the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has to be ascertained. Under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, unlike the provisions of UP ZA and LR Act, when any order has been passed in favour of any party, its effect has to be given in the relevant revenue papers and in the relevant C. H. Forms by the consolidation authorities themselves. No application to give effect to that order is required. In other words, there is no provision under the Act for the execution of any order under the Act, unlike in a suit filed under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under the Specific Relief Act or under section 202 or 203 of U. P. ZA and LR Act. The scheme of the Act and the intention of the legislature has to be ascertained. The U. P. Legislature has enacted U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with a view to provide for consolidation of agricultural holdings in U. P. and for the development of agriculture. With that object a notification is made under section 4 and by that the consolidation operation commences in respect of any land, area, or the village. What is the effect of notification under section 4, has been provided under section 5. In brief, the duty of maintaining records of rights and preparing village map, field book and annual register is transferred to the consolidation authorities. Any suit or proceeding pending in respect of agricultural land is ordered to abate under section 5 (2) (a) of the Act. Thereafter field book and current annual register is revised under section 8 and under section 8-A statement of principles are prepared. Under section 9 the statement from the records are issued and records mentioned under sections 8, 8-A are published, clerical mistakes are corrected and notices are issued to tenure holders concerned. The objections are invited and they can file objections within 21 days from the date of receipt of such notice. For filing objection under section 9-A (2), limitation is 21 days.;