JUDGMENT :

Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

1. Heard Shri Raj Kishore Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been instituted to quash the order dated 13.12.1995 (Annexure No.1), order dated 05.08.1997 (Annexure No.7) passed by respondent no.2 – Additional Collector, Land Revenue, Azamgarh, and order dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure No.6) passed by respondent no.1- The Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh.

3. In brief facts of the case are that, villages in Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna, now Sadar, District Azamgarh, were denotified under Section 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the CH Act) in the year 1972. By orders of the respondent no.2 dated 10.6.1969 the petitioner was granted Sirdari rights over plot no.2093 (new no.1216) 740 kari and plot no. 226 (new no.138/5) 421 kari as evident from form CH-45 and the petitioner is in possession over the aforesaid plots for the last 25/26 years. By notification issued under Section 4(2) of the Act (published in U.P. Gazette on 5th September, 1992), the consolidation proceedings were restored in district Azamgarh. During the consolidation operation, respondent no.1 exercising its power under Section 33 read with Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short ‘the LR Act’) changed the entries in the revenue records, based on the orders passed by the consolidation Authorities during first consolidation operations in the village, without issuing notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of hearing (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).

4. The petitioner has been in peaceful and cultivatory possession over the land in dispute for more than 31 years without there being any dispute regarding the same and without any claim by the Gaon Sabha and his name was also recorded in the Khatauni since 1969 and Jotvahi was also issued till date (Annexure No.2).

5. Against the order dated 13.12.1995, a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6181 of 1996 was filed and vide judgment dated 15.12.1996, operation of the order dated 13.12.1995 was stayed and further it was directed to the petitioner to move objection within 15 days before the respondent no.2 (Annexure No.3).

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed objection before the respondent no.2 on 27.02.1996 in case no.49 of 1996 on 27.02.1996. (Annexure No.4). Respondent no.2 summoned the original record of CH form 23 and form 45 along with original khatauni. It was argued that the petitioner's name was recorded by order dated 10.6.1969 of C.O. Manshipur in case no. 704. Since the file of case no. 704 was weeded out hence it was not available in the revenue records and the name of the petitioner was mutated in CH form 23 and CH form 45 by the consolidation authorities and it was just and proper and there was no forgery done by the petitioner. It was also argued that after the issuance of notification U/s 4(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the entry or make any correction. After publication of notification U/s 4(2) of U.P. C.H. Act, the provisions of Section 5(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act will come into play. But without considering the arguments, after 26 years, respondent no.2 changed the entry while the entry could not be changed in summary proceeding and such entry can be corrected only by way of regular suit but without considering the arguments of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 rejected the objection of the petitioner vide order dated 5.8.1997 (Annexure No. 5).

7. Against the order dated 05.08.1997, the petitioner preferred revision before the respondent no.1 and it was argued that order dated 13.12.1995 and 05.08.1997 were without jurisdiction in view of the publication of notification under Section 4(2) of the Act and it was admitted by the respondent no.1, even then he dismissed the revision and confirmed the judgment and order,