Shri Ram vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 2466 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27219 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Shri Ram
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bansh Gopal Mishra,Sudhanshu Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

When there were certain discrepancies in the various consolidation records and the subsequent revenue records, the petitioners approach the revenue authorities who sent the matter to the consolidation authorities on 17.11.2017. The Deputy Director Consolidation wrote to the District Magistrate that he may decide the matter. By the impugned order the District Magistrate has once again written to the Consolidation Commissioner that since there were mistakes in the CH form-45, the matter may be looked into by the consolidation courts.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the notification under Section 52 of the U.P. consolidation of holdings Act the consolidation courts become functus officio and they cease to exist unless there are proceedings pending. In the instant case under section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the revenue authorities alone were required to look into the orders and thereafter, prepare the proper Revenue Records. Learned counsel relied upon 1989 RD 281 (Hari Ram Vs. D.D.C., Azamgarh) and to bolster his submission, read out a certain paragraph of the judgment which is being reproduced as under:-

"We find that on October 29, 1987 an objection was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The position of law is well settled. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 48(3) of the Act if a de-notification has already taken place under Section 52 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, will first record a finding as to whether a Notification under Section 52 of the Act had, in fact, been issued on February 13, 1982. If he finds that such a notification exists and if he also finds that the land which is the subject matter of dispute is covered by the said Notification, he shall desist from exercising any power under Section 48 (3) of the Act. With this direction the petition is disposed of finally."

Under such circumstances direction is being issued to the District Magistrate, Maharajganj who would after putting the affected parties to notice get the correction of the records done within one month.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 11.9.2018

Mohit Kushwaha