K.P.Singh - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of prohibition directing the respondents nos. 1 to 3 not to start consolidation operation or adjudicate any case or title about any of the plots or chak situate in village Amauli or to make any correction in consolidation records under section 42 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) BOTH the parties agree that the village in question was under consolidation operation and denotification under section 52 of the UP CH Act has taken place on 3-8-1985. Thereafter the petitioners were served with notices contained in Annexures III and V attached with the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court for the relief mentioned above." Before me the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to restart the consolidation operation or adjudicate upon any title regarding the plots and chaks situate in village Amauli or make any correction in consolidation records under section 42-A of the Act. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the allegations made in paragraphs 4 to 8 of the writ petition and has referred to various provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with a view to support his contention that the consolidation authorities are proceeding against the petitioners without jurisdiction. The learned Standing Counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to meet the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners by inviting my attention to paragraphs 4, 6 and 8 of the counter affidavit. According to him there are certain clerical errors in the consolidation records, therefore the complained notices contained in Annexure III and V attached with the writ petition were issued to the petitioners. He has emphasized before me that the relevant mistakes could be corrected under section 42-A of the Act and the petitioners are not entitled to make any ligitimate grievance with regard to the notices issued.
(3.) IN rejoinder the learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the rulings Raja Ram v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U. P. Lucknow, 1982 AWC 437 = 1982 RD 387 and Ram Pal Singh v. D. D. C. Meerut, 1986 RD 40. The aforesaid rulings have considered the scope of Section 52 of the Act and of Rule 109-A under the aforesaid Act. The learned Standing Counsel has admitted that no notification under Section 4-A of the Act has been issued with regard to the village in question. He has also admitted that the denotification under Section 52 of the Act with regard to the village had taken place in the year 1985. It has been stated on behalf of the contesting opposite parties that due to non-availability of correct form, C. H. Form No. 24 were issued to the petitioners mentioning at the top that the proceedings contemplated were under section 42-A of the UP CH Act though wrongly mentioned as Section 42,;