The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of orders under Section 6(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the finality of orders relating to correction of land records.

RAJAN ROY, J.

1. Heard.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Raebareli dated 15.8.2016 by which he has opined that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 17.3.2004 passed under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1953') does not survive after the notification published under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1953 cancelling the earlier notification under Section 4 thereof.

3. Considering the short point involved in this writ petition, which is as to whether the order of the Consolidation Officer passed on 17.3.2004 stands protected by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 6 even after the notification of cancellation under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1953 or not, there is no need to call for counter affidavit as the facts are not in dispute.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that during consolidation proceedings on an objection being filed in respect of the land in question the Consolidation Officer determined the rights, title and interests of the petitioners herein vide his order dated 17.3.2004. The said order was never appealed by any aggrieved person under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 nor any revision was filed against it under Section 48 of the said Act. Till date no such appellate or revisional proceedings have been undertaken. Accordingly, the said order of the Consolidation Officer attained finality. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 6, by which cessation of consolidation operations with effect from the date of cancellation under Section 6(1) has been made subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 17.3.2004 which had attained finality is protected by the said provision and the rights of the petitioners thereunder also stands protected and the order of the S.D.M. to the contrary is not sustainable in law. In this regard he relies upon a decision rendered by a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (25) LCD 844.

5. Sri M.E Khan, Additional Chief Standing Counsel fairly submits that in so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, no doubt the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 17.3.2004 stands protected under sub Section (2) of Section 6, but, as a general proposition, this protection would not be available except in terms of the pronouncement referred hereinabove, specially paragraph 4 thereof, meaning thereby, unless the order had attained finality.

6. Paragraph 4 of the judgment in Madan Shah and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported in 2007 (25) LCD 844 reads as under:-

"4. While sub-section (1) of Section deals with the power of the State Government to cancel the notification under Section 4 at any time sub-section (2) to Section 6 deals with the effect a notification under Section 6(1) would have upon the consolidation proceedings. It provides that the area shall cease to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation but this is subject to any final orders relating to correction of land records. The question which arises is whether the order passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation in a revision arising out of an objection under Section 9 is a final order relating to correction of land records. The words "orders relating to correction of land records" as used in Section 6(2) are wide and would also cover orders passed in title disputes under Section 9-A because these orders can direct change of basic year entries. It is therefore necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the consolidation of Holdings Act which confer finality upon orders passed in title disputes in the consolidations proceedings. An order passed under Section 9-A deciding an objec