ORDER :

Sangeeta Chandra, J.

1. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Barabanki in Reference No. 415: Ram Narain & Others vs. Tej Bahadur and others, under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and also for quashing of the order dated 30.01.2016 passed in Case No. 178/403/219/133/2016: Lauhar Prasad and others vs. Tej Bahadur and others, under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the father of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was the original tenure holder of the land of Gata No. 467/1277 (Old No. 255/1) area 5-7-0 situated at village Mahulara, Pargana Suryapur, Tehsil Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki. The father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Molhe executed a sale deed on 30.01.1992 in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as well as one Mansa Ram-the husband of respondent No. 7, by means of which he transferred an area of 8 Biswa only to the private respondents.

On the basis of the such registered sale deed, mutation orders were passed on 30.12.1993. It is evident from the sale deed that the land which was sold out by the father of the petitioner was the northern part of the larger plot No. 255/1 and the remaining plot had its opening on the Bhitariya-Haidergarh road. Only a small opening on the Bhitariya road was given to the purchasers and the major part of old No. 255/1 remained with the father of the petitioners. The parties concerned remained in possession as per the sale deed dated 30.12.1993. On the old plot No. 255/1, the father of the petitioners was provided chak No. 333 and it was also shown in C.H. Form No. 23. However without there being any order passed by any consolidation authorities, a new plot No. 462/1277 was carved out fraudulently at the behest of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7. By preparing the final record, the Consolidation Authorities created new numbers i.e. 255/1/1 and 255/1/2, without there being any order passed by any competent authority. On the aforesaid plot No. 255/1/1, a new number 462/1277 was marked through manipulation. C.H. Form 41 and 42 was thereafter prepared.

3. In the year 2013, the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 tried to take possession of the land towards the road side, then it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that such manipulation had been created in the records. The petitioners initially filed a case under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, before the respondent No. 2 for correction of map, however the said case was rejected on 30.01.2016 by saying that only correction in map of existing boundaries can be done under Section 28 of the Act and new boundaries cannot be marked under the said Section.

4. The petitioners thereafter filed a Revision on 14.05.2016 under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act challenging the order dated 30.01.2016. A report was called for by the respondent No. 1, which was submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer stating that the old Gata No. 255/1 had been kept out of the consolidation proceedings. There is no order for correction of new number. It was also mentioned in the report that in the map prepared by the consolidation authorities only Gata No. 255/1 has been mentioned and not Gata No. 255/1/1, renumbered as Gata No. 462/1277. Despite such report been submitted admitting that there is a manipulation in the record and the Deputy Director of Consolidation being satisfied upon the correctness of the report and the genuineness of the case of the petitioners, failed to intervene on the ground that after Section 52 notification was issued closing consolidation operations in the village concerned, no orders could be passed in the reference by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation has referred to the judgment of this Court, namely, Consolidation No. 571 of 2015: Pateshwari Dutt Pandey vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation District Faiza