JUDGMENT :

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.

1. Heard Sri Somesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar Kumar Misra, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

2. As per office report dated 19.11.2018, service on respondent No.4 is though sufficient, however, no on has put in appearance on his behalf.

3. By these proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.07.2006, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Maharajganj, District Raebareli, whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act seeking correction of certain entries in the Khatauni, has been rejected. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 11.12.2007, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 15.07.2006, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, has been dismissed.

4. It appears that the petitioners moved an application dated 06.09.2005 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Maharajganj, Raebareli under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act seeking correction of certain entries in the Khatauni pertaining to the land comprised in Khata Nos. 72 and 236, situate in Village Devpuri, Pargana Bachhrawan, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Raebareli. In the said application it was pleaded inter alia by the petitioners that on an objection filed under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (herein after referred to as ‘Act’), the right of the petitioners had already been determined during the consolidation operations and though the said order was incorporated in C.H. Form 23, however, the revenue records have not been corrected in terms of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer for the reason that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was rescinded by issuing a notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. The Sub Divisional Officer has rejected the application moved by the petitioners seeking correction in the revenue records on the sole ground that since the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act has already been cancelled even before publication of the notification under Section 52 of the Act and further that the final consolidation records were not prepared as such, in these circumstances, the application under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act would not be maintainable and no relief to the petitioners in proceedings drawn under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act can be granted.

5. Learned revisional court has also agreed with the reasoning given by the Sub Divisional Officer while rejecting the application moved by the petitioners and has, thus, dismissed the revision petition.

6. This Court, vide its order dated 02.05.2019 required the petitioners to file supplementary affidavit annexing therewith copy of the order said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings drawn under Section 9A(2) of the Act and further to state as to whether the order dated 10.04.1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9A(2) of the Act was challenged before any other higher forum or not.

7. Pursuant to the said order the petitioners have filed an affidavit dated 03.05.2019 along with which certified copy of the order dated 10.04.1997 has been annexed which was passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings drawn under Section 9A(2) of the Act. The petitioners in paragraph-3 of the said supplementary affidavit have clearly stated that the order dated 10.04.1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer was not challenged either in appeal or revision before any other higher forum. Thus, so far as the validity of the order dated 10.04.1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer is concerned, the same, prima-facie, does not appear to be denied.

8. The sole question for consideration, thus, in this case is as to whether in a situation which h