- (1.) B. Dikshit, J. The short question for consideration in this petition is if mutation proceedings can be initiated under Section 12 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in short 'act') on the basis of a sale-deed executed after publication of notification under Section 52 of the Act?
(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of determining present controversy, as they have been set-out in writ petition, are the petitioners purchased chak No. 1165 area 0. 95 acres of village Patwan, Pargana Bnberu, district Banda by a registered sale-deed dated 20th July, 1992 and applied for mutation. A proclamation was issued but as nobody filed objection, the name of petitioners was mutated in CH Form 23 Part I. THE consolidation operation had come to an end on publication of notification dated 9th April, 1988 under Section 52 (1) of the Act, which means that mutation was sought on the basis of a sale- deed executed after close of consolidation operation. The petitioners have challenged an order of restoration passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda whereby he allowed restoration in respect of refer ence on the basis of which petitioners name was mutated. It is not necessary for me to examine the arguments on merits as the Deputy Director of Consolidation ordered mutation on 30-11-1995 in exercise of juris diction not vested in him. This is apparent from the fact that the sale took place on 20th July, 1992 after close of consolidation operation and therefore no proceedings could have been initiated under the Act. After close of consolidation operation in the year 1988 the consolidation authorities cease to exist except for limited purpose mentioned in Section 52 (2) of the Act. Once the authorities ceased to exist under the Act on issue of notification under Sec tion 52 (1), the mutation proceedings could neither be initiated by them nor mutation could be ordered and, therefore, the order of mutation passed on the basis of sale-deed dated 20th July, 1992 is completely beyond the scope of power of consolidation authorities. As the order is without jurisdic tion, it is for that reason that it is not neces sary to examine the validity of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda dated 28-8-1997, which has been impugned in this writ petition. For aforesaid reason the order dated 30-11-1995 incorporated in CH Form 23 Part I in proceeding under Section 48 (3) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act passed on acceptance of reference by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda (An-nexure-3 to writ petition) is quashed. The writ petition is finally disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda/collector, Banda for giving effect to this order.
(3.) CERTIFIED copy of this order be issued to learned Counsel for petitioners on pay ment of requisite charge within a week. Petition allowed. .;