Once consolidation proceedings are finalized, no further orders can be issued under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, especially regarding title disputes.

JUDGMENT

Shree Prakash Singh, J.

Heard Shri Dharm Raj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 03.11.2023 and the order dated 19.05.2018 passed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 respectively.

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially an order was passed on an application under Section 33 /39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1901") thereafter, the recall application was moved by the SHO, Sadullah Nagar and that was heard and the order was passed on 19.05.2018, whereas the learned court below recalled the order dated 27.06.2013 and consigned the record, though, it was not heard on merit. He added that against the order dated 19.05.2018, he preferred a revision bearing No.00924 of 2018 under Section 219 of the Act, 1901, which was decided by the revisional court vide order dated 03.11.2023, which is under challenge. He added that in fact, vide order dated 03.11.2023, the court below was directed to hear the parties on merits, though, the order impugned dated 19.05.2018 is not set aside. He submits that unless the order dated 19.05.2018 remain in existence, no order could have been passed, therefore, submission is that the order dated 19.05.2018 and 03.11.2023 may be set aside as the same are erroneous.

4. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the entries of the land in question is in the name of the respondent no.4 as the consolidation proceeding was completed and the parchas uptill 25 has been prepared, wherein the name of the respondent no.4 is very well there and once all the proceedings are completed then the revenue authorities has no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 33 /39, which is a summary proceeding, while intervening into the dispute of title and so far as the order dated 27.06.2013 is concerned, the revenue authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer entered into the merit of the case and has decided the title on the certain piece of land, which is impermissible under the law. Adding his arguments he submits that even the respondent no.4 is the affected party and even the State is not been arrayed as a party and without hearing the State, the order on application under Section 27.06.2013 is passed. He also added that the order dated 27.06.2013 is unlawful and erroneous and the same cannot stand in the eyes of law and so as to the interest of the State as well as respondent no.4 is concerned, the same may be protected.

5. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Durga Devi Rural and Educational Development Society v. State of U.P. and Others and referred paragraphs 16 to 22, which are quoted hereinunder:-

"16. Now coming to the main aspect of the matter, it would be relevant to refer to Section 49 of the Act which provides for a bar to the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue courts. It reads as under:

"49. Bar to civil Courts jurisdiction. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of right of tenure-holder in respect of land lying in an area, for which a notification has been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 4 or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding would or ought to have been taken under this