K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of prohibition against opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 to the effect that Reference No. 1510 under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. C. H. Act should not be proceeded with. It has also been prayed that all the proceedings at the instance of the opposite parties should he declared without jurisdiction and ultra vires.
(2.) It has been alleged that de-notification under Section 52 (1) of the U. P. C. H. Act had taken place in respect of the disputed land on 15-10-1977. The petitioner claimed sirdari right in the disputed land on the basis or Annexure 3 attached to the writ petition. Kanhaiya Lal, Mata Din Bodal, Raj Pati Ram Sabai, Hira Lal, Raj Bahadur, Bam Baran and Dukh Haran made an application to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Handia for expunging the fictitious name and making entry of their names and also for an action against the person who had made fictitious entry. According to the aforesaid persons the petitioners husband Mahabir, being a forgerer, had obtained a fictitious entry in favour of the petitioner without any case or file in the consolidation department. The allegations made by the aforesaid persons would be evident from Annexure 4 attached to the writ petition.
(3.) According to the petitioner she received a notice (Annexure 5 attached to the writ petition) to the effect that in Form No. 45 her name was fictitiously recorded without any case, hence the entry deserved to be removed. The petitioner was required to file an objection and in the absence of any objection by her the matter would be referred to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for expunction of the fictitious entry on 9-2-1978. The petitioner in reply to the aforesaid notice filed her objection on 6-2-1978 as is evident from Annexure 6 attached to the writ petition. In her objection the petitioner had alleged that she was not guilty of any fraud and that de-notification had taken place under Section 52 of the U. P. C. H. Act, hence the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and that the petitioner had got the disputed land through a compromise and the entry had been made in pursuance thereof therefore it was prayed that the notice should he discharged.;