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