Objections to consolidation proceedings must be filed within statutory timelines; orders made by consolidation authorities are upheld unless shown to be illegal or lacking jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 4 and Sri Hasan Abbas, learned Standing Counsel for the State in Writ B No.47925 of 2014.

Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 5 and Sri Hasan Abbas, learned Standing Counsel for the State in Writ B No.8596 of 2015.

2. Since Common issues are involved in both the writ petitions hence both the writ petitions are clubbed and heard together and writ petition No.47925 of 2014 shall be treated as a leading petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Village-Bhedpur Pergana-Jamaur, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Shahjahanpur came under operation of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as "the U.P.C.H. Act"). Statement of principles prepared under Section 8 (A) of the U.P. C.H. Act was published in the year 2004. According to respondent No.4 (Lata Devi) an objection under Section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed in the year 2005, which was registered as case No.9/299 in which several dates were fixed till 2007, but after 2007, file of aforesaid case was misplaced accordingly respondent No.4 filed second objection on 24.11.2008. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.05.2009 declared plot No.454/525 as C.H.18 (out side Consolidation operation) but no order was passed in respect to the plot No.455. According to respondent No.4 (Lata Devi) she purchased plot No.455 area 0.543 hectare and 454/525 area 0.049 total area 0.592 hectare from Smt. Vibbo Devi and others. Aforesaid plot No.455 and 454/525 were situated to the adjacent of N.H.24 Bareilly-Shahjahanpur road. According to respondent No.4 (Lata Devi) her name was mutated in the revenue record on the basis of sale deed executed in her favour in respect to aforementioned plots. Respondent no.4 (Lata Devi) is chak holder No.274. The plot No.454/425 was proposed in the chak of the petitioner (Rajeswari Devi), accordingly respondent No.4 (Lata Devi) has filed her chak objection in the year 2005, but petitioner (Rajeshwari Devi) denying the fact of filing chak objection in the year 2005. According to petitioner (Rajeshwari Devi) upon publication of notification, no objection was filed by respondent no.4 (Lata Devi) under Section-9 (B) of U.P. C.H. Act, as such in view of the provisions contained under Section 11 (A) of U.P.C.H. Act, the claim of respondent no.4 (Lata Devi) is barred . Petitioner (Rajeshwari Devi) is chak holder No.277. According to petitioner (Rajeshwari Devi) provisional consolidation Scheme prepared by Assistant Consolidation Officer was confirmed by Settlement Officer Consolidation and chak holders of the village in question were put into possession over their respective chaks. The final records under Section 27 of the U.P.C.H. Act were prepared and the village was denotified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act on 27.06.2007. According to petitioner (Rejeshwari Devi) no objection was registered and fought between the parties under Section 9 (B) of 20 of U.PC.H. Act as such no claim can be raised after denotification of the village in question on 27.06.2007. Against the order dated 27.05.2009 petitioner (Rajeshwari Devi) filed two separate appeals one against the order dated 27.05.2009 under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act and another against the order dated 24.06.2009 passed under Rule 109-A of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the U.P.C.H. Rules"). The aforementioned appeals were registered as appeal No.3/113 and 27. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 04.07.2011 dismissed the appeal No.3/113, but appeal No.27 was allowed setting