An application under Rule 109-A of the Rules is maintainable even after the notification u/s 52 of the Act, if the order which is sought to be implemented was passed before the notification.

V.K. KHANNA, J.

1. Consolidation proceedings took place in the village in which the land in dispute lies. Regarding allotment of chaks to the parties in this writ petition an order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 13.5.1974 which had become final between the parties. Notification u/s 52 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter described as the Act) was issued on 26th November, 1977. On 8th July 1978 an application under Rule 109-A of the Rules framed under the Act (hereinafter described as the Rules), was moved by the contesting opposite parties for implementing and giving effect to the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.5.1974. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 25th January 1980 rejected the aforesaid application as not maintainable as there had been a notification u/s 52 of the Act in respect of the village. A revision was filed by the contesting opposite parties. The aforesaid revision was allowed and the Consolidation Officer was directed to decide the aforesaid application on merits. The present writ petition has been filed against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.12.1980.

2. The present writ petition was first heard by a learned Single Judge and he was of the opinion that the question to be decided in the case was whether after the Gazette notification u/s 52 of the Act an application under Rule 109-A of the Rules was maintainable or not. On the aforesaid question the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that as two learned Single Judges of this Court have taken contradictory view on this point, matter required reference to a larger Bench for deciding the controversy. It is in these circumstances that the entire writ petition has been referred to a Division Bench.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Raja Ram and Others vs. The Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others, (1982) AWC 437, has held:

In accordance with Rule 109-A read with Section 52(2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act the contesting opposite parties could not approach the Consolidation Authorities for getting requisite entry as no case was pending on the' date on which notification u/s 52(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act.

4. In this case the order passed on 23.7.1965 by the Consolidation Authorities was sought to be given effect to by moving an application after the notification u/s 52 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act had taken place. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that as no case was pending the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities under Rule 109-A of the Rules could not be invoked after notification u/s 52 of the Act.

5. In the case of Brij Bir Singh and Another vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, (1987) 1 AWC 326, a learned Single Judge of this Court took a contrary view by holding that even after the close of Consolidation operation an application for correction of papers for giving effect to an order which became final is maintainable under Rule 109-A of the Rules. In this case the Deputy Director of Consolidation had given a decision on July 8, 1964 in favour of the contesting Respondents and that order had become final. However, the necessary amendment in the revenue papers and relevant C.H. forms was not made. In 1966 a notification u/s 52 of the Act was also made. An application was thereafter made with a prayer for correction of the map and papers and also praying that the order dated July 8, 1964 may be given effect to in the revenue papers. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, who heard the parties held that as the village had been de-notified u/s 52(1) of the Act, it appears just that in order to give effect to the order dated July 8, 1964 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 u/s 48(3) of t