JUDGMENT :

Yashwant Varma, J.

1. Heard - Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, who has appeared for the contesting private respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

This petition calls in question the order dated 3 April, 2001 passed by the Collector in purported exercise of powers conferred by section 27(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (1953 Act). The aforesaid order has been affirmed in revision in terms of the order of 21 February, 2005 passed by the Commissioner. The challenge to these orders are laid by the petitioner who is stated to have purchased Plot No. 464 from one Jagat Narain in terms of a sale deed dated 27 December, 1986. According to the petitioner pursuant to the sale deed being so executed, his name was also duly recorded in the revenue record. The private respondents are stated to have made an application purporting to be under section 27(3) of the 1953 Act seeking a direction for correction of a village map that depicted the position of Plot No. 456. The respondents are also stated to have preferred an appeal against a declaration made in favour of the petitioner on 10 January 1995 under section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, 1950 Act). By the impugned order, the order of 10 January, 1995 by which that declaration was made has been set aside and consequential directions issued to the authorities to proceed in the matter. The respondents have principally taken the position that during the pendency of the application for correction, no declaration under section 143 of the 1950 Act could have been made.

2. It appears and as is disclosed on the record, consolidation proceedings commenced in the area and ultimately resulted in a final notification under section 52 being promulgated on 10 November, 1973. In the course of the consolidation proceedings, CH Form 45 was drawn in which the name of the vendor of the petitioner is shown against Plot No. 464 while that of Smt. Vimla Devi (mother of the private respondents) was shown against Plot No. 465. Vimla Devi, thereafter is stated to have moved an application seeking the relocation of that plot and for the boundaries thereof being redrawn; This application was disposed of on 20 April, 1968. The amendments which were thereafter required to be made were also duly noted by the Consolidation Authorities. These documents have been brought on the record by way of a Supplementary Affidavit dated 13 April, 2005.

3. Admittedly the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records on 26 March, 2000. Suffice it to note that no proceedings in respect of the recording of name as made in terms of that order were ever drawn by the respondents No. 4 and 5. They, however, chose to institute what is described to be an application under section 27(3) of the 1953 Act asserting that the boundaries of Plot No. 465 had not been correctly depicted on the map. It is in these proceedings that the impugned orders have come to be passed.

4. The first question which consequently falls for consideration is the nature of the power which stands conferred upon the Collector under section 27(3) of the 1953 Act. Section 27 of the 1953 Act reads thus:

"27. New revenue records.--[(1) As soon as may be, after the final Consolidation Scheme has come into force, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause to be prepared for each village, a new map, field-book and record of rights in respect of the consolidation area, on the basis of the entries in the map, as corrected under section 7, the Khasra chakbandi, the annual register prepared under section 10 and the allotment orders as finally made and issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall, subject to such modifications and alterations as may be prescribed, be followed in the preparation of the said map and records.]

[(2) All entries in the record of rights prepared in accordan