The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act allows authorities to adjudicate on land rights even when a wrong provision is cited, as long as they possess the necessary jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, Advocate, counsel for petitioner, Sri Anurag Narayan Srivastava, Advocate, counsel for the Respondent No. 5 and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, Learned standing counsel.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to other private-respondents is dispensed with.

3. The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order of Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 06-04-23, impugned order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation order dt. 27-09-2022 as well as without jurisdiction orders passed by the consolidation officer dt. 22-07-22 and 10-08-22, contained as Annexure no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to this Writ Petition, with all consequential effects.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession, use and occupation of purchased share of Khata no. 422"

4. The brief facts of the case, as appears from record, are as under:-

(i) The Gata No. 519 area 0.5110 Hectare Gata No. 517 area 0.0381 Hectare, Gata No. 257 area 0.0220 Hectare and Gata No. 519 area 0.0800 Hectare were purchased by petitioner no.1/ Smt. Rama Devi and respondent no. 5/ Smt. Sarita Devi through registered sale deed dated 09.03.2022. Boundaries indicated in this sale deed are as under:-

(ii) The sale deed dated 09.03.2022 was executed after conclusion of proceedings under Section 10 and 20, respectively, of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act of 1953'),

(iii) Undisputedly the proceedings under Section 10 and 20. of the Act of 1953, were concluded on 31.08.2020 and 05.03.2021, respectively.

(iv) After becoming the owner of the land in dispute i.e. Gata No. 519, an application was moved under Section 9A(2) of the Act of 1953, which was registered as Case No. 402/21-22 (Sarita Devi Versus Rama Devi and Others).

(v) Vide order dated 22.07.2022 the respondent no. 3/Consolidation Officer Bilgram, District Hardoi in short (C.O.), after considering the fact that the name of Laxmi Devi wife of Munna Lal (vendor of sale deed dated 09.03.2023) was recorded in the revenue records in regard to Gata No. 517/0.0381 Hectare, Gata No. 519/0.5100 Hectare, Gata No. 257/0.0220 Hectare (total area 0.611 Hectare) and that of sale deed dated 09.03.2022 , as also the report dated 02.06.2022 of Assistant Consolidation Officer, directed to indicate the name of Respondent No. 1/Smt. Sarita Devi and Petitioner No. 1/Smt. Rama Devi in Form 23 of Chak No. 422 according to their share indicated in the sale deed dated 09.03.2022.

(vi) Through sale deed dated 09.03.2022, the petitioner no.1/Smt. Rama Devi and respondent no. 5/Smt. Sarita Devi became the owner of (vkB vkuk) 1/2 share each of the total area of land purchased.

(vii) It appears that after the order dated 22.07.2022, the petitioner no. 1/Smt. Rama Devi and respondent no.5/Smt. Sarita Devi preferred application(s) under Section 21(1) of the Act of 1953, which were registered as Case No. 224 (Sarita Devi Versus Gaon Sabha and Others) and Case No. 228 (Smt. Rama Devi Versus State).

(viii) The respondent no. 5/Smt. Sarita Devi in her application stated that Chak be provided adjacent to Kharanja (road) after taking boring into account.

(ix) The petitioner No.1/Smt. Rama Devi in her application also claimed that Chak be provided adjacent to Kharanja (road).

(x) The respondent no.3/C.O. vide order dated 10.08.2022 decided both the cases i.e. Case No. 224 (Sarita Devi Versus Gaon Sabha and Others) and Case No. 228 (Smt. Rama Devi Versus State).

(xi) Vide order dated 10.08.2022, the Chak was provided to respondent no.5/Smt. Sarita Devi adjacent to Kharanja (road) situated at Northe