Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri K.N.Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri D.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goshwami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. The counsel for the parties agreed that on the legal premises, this writ petition may be decided finally without inviting any counter-affidavit. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Additional District Magistrate City/Deputy Director of Consolidation in Reference No. 58/1 of 2012-2013 filed under Section 48 (3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short ‘the Act’). By the impugned order, the reference made under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed and the name of the petitioner has been expunged from the revenue record holding the earlier entry in the name of the petitioner to be forged one.

4. The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears Village in question1 was notified under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of ‘the Act’. The father of the petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 A of the Act for recording his name over 16 bigha of land before the Consolidation Officer (herein after referred to as C.O.) The aforesaid objection was allowed by the C.O. on 25.3.1982. No appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment. Thereafter, petitioner’s name was recorded that in the form 23 but some how it was not recorded in the form 41 and 45. It is contended that the petitioner could not file any application under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) within the reasonable time. However after a long gap, an application under Rule 109 of the Rules was filed which has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 24.1.2012. The petitioner, herein, has filed an appeal. The said appeal is still pending.

5. It is contended that pending appeal, a complaint was filed and the same was enquired by the City Magistrate. Thereafter, after getting report of Assistant Consolidation Officer (in short A.C.O), the C.O. and Settlement Officer Consolidation (in short S.O.C.) the matter was referred to the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short D.D.C.) under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act. The D.D.C., in turn, taking note of the reports has passed the impugned order. In the submission of Sri Tripathi, order impugned is vitiated for the following reasons :

(1) Because the petitioner was neither noticed nor heard at the time of making reference which is contrary to the provisions contained under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act.

(2) Because the reference was decided under sub-section 1 of Section 48 which also requires the hearing of the affected parties before passing the final order in the reference therefore order impugned suffers from breach of principles of natural justice.

(3) Because the order impugned is without jurisdiction as once the petitioner’s appeal was pending against the order of C.O. rejecting the application under Rule 109 of the Rules dated 24.1.2012 and dated 25.3.1982 passed in a proceeding under Section 9A of the Act which was never challenged, there was no occasion to entertain the complaint and initiate the proceeding of reference.

6. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Goshwami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for State respondents has very vehemently contended that the land in question was declared as reserve forest vide the notification dated 25th August, 1950 and once it was declared as a reserve forest, in view of Section 5 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short ‘ the Forest Act’), no new right shall accrue over that land i