The positive right of Bhumidhar conferred by the Act and the obligation of the revenue authorities to make necessary entries in revenue records.

SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri R.P. Singh, Counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel representing respondent No. 1 as well as the Counsel for respondent No. 2. Plot No. 400 (area 1-10-0) as well as Plot No. 460 (area 1-0-0) were recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha in the basic year khatauni. During the consolidation operations held in the village, the petitioner filed objections under section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') claiming that, as he was a Scheduled Caste and an agricultural labour and was in possession of the said plots before 30.6.1985, therefore, under section 122(B-4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereafter referred to as, 'U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950'), he shall be deemed to be a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights and that revenue records showing the petitioner to be a Class-IV holder of the disputed plots be accordingly corrected. After considering the records of the case as well as oral and documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner and the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Consolidation officer vide his order dated 30.1.1992 recorded a finding that the petitioner was a landless agricultural labour and was in possession of the disputed plots from before 30.6.1985 and was also a scheduled caste and did not have more than 1.26 hect. of land and therefore held that under section 122(B-4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, the petitioner shall be deemed to be a Bhumidhar with transferable rights. Consequently, the Consolidation Officer vide his aforesaid order directed that the revenue records be corrected by deleting the name of Gaon Sabha and petitioner be recorded as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. The aforesaid order was never challenged by the Gaon Sabha. It is also pertinent to state here that, as evident from the order dated 30.1.1992 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the Gaon Sabha or the State of Uttar Pradesh never contested the claim of the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer despite notices having been issued to them. It appears that during the preparation of provisional consolidation scheme, there was some confusion regarding valuation of different plots including the disputed plots and therefore a reference was made to the Deputy Director of Consolidation regarding valuation of certain plots. On the aforesaid reference, the Deputy Director of Consolidation took cognizance of the matter and passed the impugned order dated 17.5.2002 setting-aside the order dated 30.1.1992 passed by the Consolidation Officer. From the order dated 17.5.2002, it appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had summoned the petitioner and recorded his evidence wherein the petitioner allegedly stated that for the last 7-8 years, he did not work as an agricultural labour and was working as an electrician. Relying on the aforesaid statement, the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the petitioner was not eligible to be declared as a Bhumidhar with transferable rights under section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The judgment and order dated 17.5.2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. It has been argued by Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 17.5.2002 has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Reference No. 494 which was registered under section 48(3) of the Act, 1953 and under the aforesaid provision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not empowered to take suo-motu cognizance and examine the record of any case or proceedings of any sub-ordinate authority for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or appropriateness of any order passed by such authority and therefore the order dated 17.5.2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was without jurisdiction. It has been further argued by Counsel for the