RAJIV JOSHI, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.N. Pandey, holding brief of Sri Brij Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.5.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Dehat in Revision No. 13/37 of 2017, whereby the revision of the petitioner filed under Section 48(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was dismissed affirming the order dated 8.8.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as the order dated 15.5.2015 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
(3.) It reflects from the record that on the basis of allotment of land to the father of the petitioner over the land of plot no. 382/393, an application for correction was filed to the effect that some less area has been recorded in the record. During consolidation operation, an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 42-A of the Act, which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer with the finding that record of consolidation proceeding has finalised and the said application was filed after 40 years from the date of publication of notification under Section 52 of the Act and therefore, there is no possibility to make any correction by allowing the application of the petitioner filed under Section 42-A of the Act. The said order was challenged before the Settlement Officer Consolidation by way of filing appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 8.8.2017. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation was affirmed vide impugned order dated 30.5.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Dehat on a revision filed by the petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that correction is of clerical in nature and therefore, records can be corrected and no outer limit has been prescribed under Section 42-A of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent supported the finding recorded in the impugned orders passed by all the consolidation authorities. I have considered the rival submission of parties and perused the record. It is well settled that after the finalization of consolidation records, correction cannot be made since, the application filed by the petitioner after 40 years from the date of issuance of notification under Section 52 of the Act i.e. much after the finalization of the chaks and therefore, there is no possibility to consider the application filed by the petitioner as the final chaks of the other chak holders are likely to be affected.;