JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 3 as well as learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4.

2. By way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the consolidation authorities in two separate proceedings i.e. under Section 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act") and under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that consolidation authorities have incorrectly fixed two different exchange value of plot no. 158. For some of the portion it has been fixed 90 paise and for remaining portion it has been fixed 70 paise. In this backdrop of the fact, the petitioner has initially invoked proceeding under Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act and after becoming unsuccessful in the said proceeding, he has resorted to another proceeding under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act. As such, the petitioner has demanded to deduct the exchange value of plot no. 158 from 90 paise to 70 paise.

4. Facts culled out from the averment made in the writ petition are that plot no. 158 is a big plot and its area has been adjusted along with several Khata holders. Initially an application under Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act was filed on behalf of Ram Gopal Kaushik (father of Atul Kaushik and Ashish Kaushik) with the prayer to deduct the exchange value of plot no. 158 from 90 paise to 70 paise. Said application was allowed vide order dated 19.05.2005 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Consequently, valuation of plot no. 158M area 2.097 hectare was reduced from 90 paise to 70 paise. Having been aggrieved Satish Chandra (respondent no. 4) had filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allowed the appeal treating the objection under Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act to be barred under the provisions as enunciated under Section 11-A(3) of U.P.C.H. Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner and others, has dismissed the revision on the same ground. At the subsequent stage, present petitioner along with Atul Kaushik and Ashish Kaushik have taken the second chance to correct the exchange value of plot no. 158 by moving an application under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act, which was rejected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that section 42-A is mean only for the purposes of rectifying the clerical error. Having been aggrieved against said orders, Vijay Pal (petitioner) alone has filed instant writ petition.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that partition between the parties had already been taken place in the year 1966 and according to their share all the parties have entered into their possession. It is next submitted that, in the chak of the petitioner, consolidation authorities have fixed the exchange value of plot no. 158 in two categories, some portion has been shown having exchange value of 90 paise, however, remaining portion has been shown having exchange value of 70 paise. Therefore, it is an arithmetical error which can be cured by the consolidation authorities under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act. It is next submitted that the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal, unwarranted under the law and tainted with irregularity and, therefore, same is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has contended that difference of exchange value in plot no. 158 has been occurred because of the nature of the land. Some of the portion of land is low laying area, therefore level of the said area is below than normal level of remaining portion of plot no. 158. It is further contended that the regular proceeding for fixation of valuation has already been decided under Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act, there