Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs :

(i) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to expunge the alleged and forged amaldaramad made in the CH-Form 23 Part-1 referring the alleged reference No. 388 under Section 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 decided on 20.2.2005 by the respondent No. 1 and alleged Case No. 2089 under Section 9 U.P. C.H.Act decided on 31.1.2005 by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-4 to this writ petition).

(ii) Issue, any other writ, order or direction to which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) To award cost of the petition to the petitioner.

Heard Sri L.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for State respondents.

Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to expunge the forged amaldaramad made in the CH-Form 23 Part-1 referring the alleged reference No. 388 under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) decided on 20.2.2005 by the respondent No. 1 and alleged Case No. 2089 under Section 9 of the Act decided on 31.1.2005 by the respondent No. 2.

2. It is contended by Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no such order as has been noted in CH Form 23 either in the reference No. 388 under Section 48 (3) of the Act or in Case No. 2089 under Section 9 of the Act passed by Consolidation Officer (respondent No. 2). In his submission, on the basis of forged orders, the said entry has been made which is causing serious prejudice to the petitioners and in that eventuality, the petitioners have filed an application under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short D.D.C.) for calling the report with regard to forged entry and expunging the same but the same has not been decided hence the petitioner has prayed for issuing writ of mandamus directing the D.D.C. to decide the same.

3. The question would be as to whether under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act an individual can make a reference and the authority concerned is obliged to decide the same and writ of mandamus can be issued on such application directing the D.D.C. to decide such application.

For appreciating this controversy, the provisions contained under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act including Explanation 1 and 2 are required to be looked into which are reproduced hereinunder :

Section 48 Revision and reference :

(3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1).

Explanation (1).—For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation.

(Explanation (2).—For the purposes of this section the expression ‘interlocutory order’ in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding.

From the bare reading of sub-section 3 of Section 48 it would transpire that any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1). The Explanation (1) of the aforesaid Section provides that for the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consoli