Consolidation Authorities are legally obligated to implement judicial orders from consolidation courts, and failure to do so constitutes a breach of duty.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief:

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to correct the Revenue Records (Khatauni) of the petitioner within some reasonable stipulated period which may be deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by respondent no.2 and order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure No. 4 & 6) to this writ petition."

3. Petitioner is aggrieved with the inaction/omission at the part of the Consolidation Authorities who have miserably failed to give effect to the order dated 24.08.2015 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 17 (Annexure no.5) in the land record, which resulted into preparation of incorrect final consolidation record.

4. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and order proposed to be passed herein, this Court proceeds to decide the instant writ petition finally with the consent of counsel for the parties present without calling for their respective affidavits.

5. Facts culled out from the record are that arising out of chak allotment proceeding, a revision has been preferred on behalf of Devakram (father of petitioner) assailing the orders dated 13.08.2010/30.04.2011 and 21.11.2011 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 21(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act'). Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 24.08.2015, has allowed the revision and modified the chak no. 384, 240, 1117, 1008A, 4, 405, 1291, 1325, chak road, main road and naveen parati. Order dated 24.08.2015 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation became final between the parties inasmuch as same has not been assailed before any court competent. As per record, order dated 24.08.2015 has been transcribed in C.H. Form 45 as it is, however, due to inadvertent mistake at the part of the Consolidation Authorities, same could not be endorsed in C.H. Form 23. It is apposite to mention that, as per report submitted by Tehsildar in proceeding under Section 38(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, C.H.-Form-45 was prepared in the year 2014, however, village was de-notified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act in the year 2018. In the meantime, order dated 24.08.2015 has been passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. Consolidation Authorities concerned have simply transcribed the amendment chart of the order dated 24.08.2015 in C.H.-Form-45, without correcting the relevant record and same was remain standing at the time of denotification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act. Consequent thereto, proper correction in the relevant consolidation record could not be carried out which led discrepancy in the final consolidation record, relating to old plot numbers which were taken out by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and new plot numbers which were allotted in the chak of the concerned chak holders, effected by order dated 24.08.2015. Due to this discrepancy, there is an anomaly in the final consolidation record which has been carried forward in the corresponding khatauni (land revenue record). Owing to said anomaly, there is an apprehension of breach of peace on the spot and all the concerned parties are at loggerheads with respect to their right and title over the property in question. To correct the said anomaly petitioner has initially moved an appropriate application under Section 38(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to correct the land revenue record, however, Sub-Divisional Officer, Modinagar, vide its order dated 18.08.2023, has rejected the application for want of jurisdiction on the ground that matter relates to correction of the consolidation record, therefore, petitioner has an