Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Narayan Dutt Shukla and Mr. Rituvendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6, Mr. Vinay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Learned counsels for respondent nos. 4 to 6 submitted that writ petition be heard and disposed of finally without inviting any counter affidavit in the matter.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Village Sherwadeeh, Tappa- Banganwa, Pargana- Amroha, Teshil Haraiya, District Basti came under operation of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act long back. The Village in question has been denotified under Section 5 2 of U.P.C.H. Act in the year 1985. In the basic year of the consolidation operation, one Jamiluddin son of Rafiuddin was recorded in the khata No. 4 and Jamiluddin remained recorded in C.H. Form 45. After the death of Jamiluddin, the name of Maimuna Begum was recorded over the plot in question. According to contesting respondents, Maimuna Begum had executed a registered sale deed on 27.5.2016 in their favour. Petitioners' name was recorded in the proceeding under Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules vide order dated 18.1.2021 on the basis of the order dated 31.7.1984 alleged to be passed in their favour in case Nos. 1134, 1135, 1136 under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. On the basis of the restoration application filed against the order dated 18.1.2021 passed in the proceeding under Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules, the order dated 18.1.2021 was set aside vide subsequent order dated 23.4.2021. Against the order dated 31.7.1984 passed in case Nos. 1134, 1135, 1136, restoration application was filed on 19.8.2021 before Consolidation Officer in which orders dated 11.11.2021, 17.11.2021 and 5.1.2022 were passed. An objection dated 7.12.2021 under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed on behalf of the petitioners praying that their name be recorded over the plot in question after granting benefit of Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT . The aforementioned proceeding was registered as case No. 410 under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Against the order dated 5.1.2022, respondent nos. 4 to 6 filed a recall application dated 17.1.2022 and Muimuna Begum also filed a restoration application dated 17.1.2022 against the order dated 5.1.2022. The aforementioned restoration application dated 17.1.2022 was heard and rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.12.2022. Against the order dated 16.12.2022, a revision under Section 48 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 6 which was registered as case No. 819 computerized case No. 202354171400000001 under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation/ respondent no.2. The aforementioned revision was heard and decided under the impugned order dated 4.12.2024 allowing the revision setting aside the orders dated 11.11.2021, 17.11.2021, 5.1.2022, 16.12.2022 and directing to record the plot No. 1022 area 0-10-0 as banjar in the revenue records as well as proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act and Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules were ordered to be dropped accordingly. Hence this writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for record quash and set aside the order dated 4.12.2024 passed by respondent no.2 Deputy Director of Consolidation Basti in revision No.