An application for correction of papers seeking to give effect to an order passed during the consolidation operation can be moved even after the close of the consolidation operation, and a reference under Section 48(3) of the Act can be made after the issuance of a notification under Section 52(1) of the Act.

B.L. Yadav, J.

1. THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 29-4-86 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Meerut Camp at Muzaffarnagar, in a revision filed by the petitioners under Section 40 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act), and the order dated 31-5-85 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).

2. THE facts of the case are that in respect of the land in dispute a case was registered after the commencement of consolidation operation and the same was taken in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who decided the same on 8-7-1964 in favour of contesting respondent nos. 4 and 5. THE petitioners did not challenge that order by filing any writ petition or in any other manner. It appears that in pursuance of the order dated 8-7-64 necessary amendments in revenue papers or relevant CH Forms were not made. After some time the consolidation operation in the area was closed and consequently notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act was issued just after two years in 1966. After the date of notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act, respondent nos. 4 and 5 discovered that their names did not appear in the relevant revenue papers and they being advised by a local counsel filed an application under Section 28 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 with a prayer for correction of the map and papers and also praying that the order dated 8-7-64 may be given effect to in revenue papers. It may be stated that this was actually an application for correction of papers under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act and by bonafide mistake it appears that the same was filed under Section 28 of the Act. It appears that in the application Section 28 was quoted so that necessary correction in the map may also be made.

This aforesaid application for correction of papers purporting to be under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act was forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who heard the parties and held by the impugned order dt. 21-5-85 that as the village has been denotified under Section 52 (1) of the Act, it appears just that in order to give effect to the order dated 8-7-64 passed by the then Deputy Director of Consolidation which became final between the parties in all respects, the dispute may be decided in reference proceedings under Section 48 (3) of the Act. A reference accordingly was sought to be made so that the order dated 8-7-64 may be given effect to. Against that order a revision was filed by the present petitioners which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 29-4-86. It is against these two orders that the present petition has been filed.

3. SRI N. C. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that as the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act has been published, consequently the consolidation operation was closed in the area and there could be no revival of the proceedings under Section 48 (3) of the Act nor the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) directing the reference to be made was correct and it was open to the contesting respondents to have sought the effect of the order dated 8-7-64 only by the time the consolidation operations were not closed, and till the notification under Section 52 of the Act was issued. After issuance of the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to pass any order except that an order, passed by the High Court in proceedings which were pending before the consolidation authorities when the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act was issued, can be given effect to. It appears that the intention of legislature was that only the proceedings which were pending at the time when the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act was issued, the order in those proceedings, even though passed after the issuance of notif