JUDGMENT

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 4.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that, owing to procedural mistake, the Tehsil Record [Namantaran Bahi- (R-6)]could not properly be prepared in pursuance of the order dated 15.10.1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in reference proceeding No. 1128.

3. From the record it reveals that, to correct the mistake in Namantaran Bahi (R-6) available in Tehsil record room, petitioner has moved an application under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (in brevity, U.P.C.H. Rules). The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 25.04.2016, has rejected the application, however, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, on appeal being filed on behalf of the petitioner, has allowed the same and issued a direction for correction of the relevant documents in pursuance of the order dated 15.10.1979. Against the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, a restoration application has been filed on behalf of the state authorities which was allowed by order dated 26.04.2021 quashing the earlier order dated 08.03.2017. Having being aggrieved, petitioner has filed revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision and discarded the claim of the petitioner for correction. Having been aggrieved against the said order, instant writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 15.10.1979 has already been given effect to in CH Form 45 which has been admitted by Deputy Director of Consolidation in its order dated 24.08.2022, however, same correction could not be carried forwarded properly in Namantaran Bahi (R6). It is further submitted that it is normal procedural mistake which can be cured at any stage, inasmuch as, order dated 15.10.1979 has already been given effect to in the main consolidation record. It is further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally dismissed the revision without properly appreciating the law, and the entries in the land record, in the right perspective. It is further submitted that order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 26.04.2021 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation are liable to be quashed being illegal, unwarranted under the law and cryptic.

5. In counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been admitted that order dated 15.10.1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has attained finality, inasmuch as, same has not been challenged before any court. In this respect, report submitted by the Joint Committee of Consolidation Lekhpal and Consolidator dated 04.01.2023 has been appended as Annexure-1, wherein, it has specifically been mentioned that order dated 15.10.1979 has became final. Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit, a report of Tehsildar dated 05.01.2023, evince the mistake at the part of the state that, though order dated 15.01.1979 has been implemented in CH Form 45 and same has also been endorsed in the Namantran Bahi (R6), however, required signature of Consolidator and the Assistant Consolidation Officer could not be endorsed against the said entry in R6 to verify the same. For ready reference, joint report dated 04.01.2023, Anneure-1 to counter affidavit and report of Tehsildar dated 05.01.2023, Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit, are reproduced here-in-below:-

"Report dated 04.01.2023

lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh]

xkft;kcknA

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa ;ksftr fjV ;kfpdk la0 3257@2022 jru flag cuke m0iz0 ljdkj ,oa vU; ds lEcU/k esa lknj voxr djkuk gS fd xzke gqlSuiqj ijxuk tykykckn rglhy eksnhuxj ftyk xkft;kckn esa ikfjr vkns'k U;k;ky; mi lapkyd pdcUnh xkft;kckn fuxjkuh la0 1128 vkns'k fnukad 15-10-1979 /kkjk&48¼3½ dk veynjken xzke dh tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&45 dh izFke ftYn tks jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj esa lafpr gS ds [kkrk la0 356 vkfn ij fd;k x;k gS ,oa rglhy xkft;kckn es