Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav, has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in Court today. The same is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri SP Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav for the contesting respondents.

3. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 42-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (the Act) and has been filed challenging the orders dated 27.6.2014 and 14.5.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad (Respondent No. 1) and the Consolidation Officer, Allahabad (Respondent No. 2) respectively.

4. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that an application for correction of map was filed sometime in the month of May, 2007 by the respondent. This application was allowed by respondent No. 1 by the order dated 14.5.2008, which order has been affirmed by the revisional Court. Hence the present writ petition.

5. The primary contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the application under Section 42-A of the Act was filed after issuance of notification under Section 52(1) of the Act on 16.7.2005 i.e. almost two years after the close of consolidation operations. Therefore, he submits that application itself is not maintainable and the corrections, if any, in the map, once the village has been de notified, could only have been made in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

6. The counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, relying upon several decisions of this Court contended that an application under Section 42-A of the Act for correction of map would lie even after the consolidation operations had been closed by issuance of notification under Section 52(1) of the Act. The authorities relied upon are:

(i) Sheesh Ram v. DDC; 2009(5) ADJ 498,

(ii) Pooran Singh v. DDC and others; 2008(10) ADJ 497 and

(iii) Wajid Ali and others v. DDC and others; 2009(10) ADJ 6 (NOC).

7. In the case of Sheesh Ram (Supra), the Court has as held as follows:

“Section 42-A of the Act has an overriding effect. The power to correct the apparent mistake in the map can be exercised even after the notification under Section 52 of the Act. By means of the application dated 3.7.1998, the petitioners have only sought a direction from the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to pass the order in pursuance of the order passed in Reference No. 11 under Section 48(3) of the Act. Chandra Kiran v. Khacheroo and others, dated 23.12.1986. In my opinion, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad has rightly rejected the application as no matter was pending before him. In case, if in pursuance of the order in reference No. 11 no order has been passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the petitioners should have approached the Settlement Officer Consolidation for disposal of the matter instead of approaching the Deputy Director of Consolidation and seeking the direction for the disposal of the matter. Therefore, I do not see any reason for interference with the impugned order dated 17.3.1999”.

8. Again, in the case of Pooran Singh (Supra), it has been held:

“Perusal of the aforesaid Section reveals that if there is mistake, such mistake can be rectified, even if there is publication under Section 52 of the Act. There is no prohibition that such power cannot be exercised under Section 42-A of the Act after publication under Section 52 of the Act. It is true that if by making rectification, if any ones right is affected, he should also be heard. It appears that before passing order dated 17.10.2006, Consolidation Officer has not given opportunity of hearing to respondent Nos. 4 and 5.”

9. Yet again in the case of Wajid Ali (Supra) it was held:

“All the authorities have recorded categorical findings that the respondent had an original holding of plot Nos. 420 and 421 of Chak No. 12 which was on a road side. This Court in the ca