JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Via Video Conferencing)

The petitioners had filed this writ petition, challenging the Revisional Court's order dated 13.03.2013, as was passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the Revision, which was preferred by the respondents being aggrieved as against the Appellate Court's order was allowed and the appellate Court proceedings under Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act were quashed, holding thereof that the Appeal under Section 11 of the Act, was the remedy which was not available to the petitioners as against the order of the Consolidation Officer.

2. If the objection, which was preferred by the petitioners is taken into consideration, in fact, the said objection, which was filed by the petitioners, they themselves have invoked the remedy under Section 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and not under Section 9, as it has been shown to be there by striking of Section 20 in the objection and the justification for this Court, for the said reason is that the objection filed on 07.02.1998, contained the following reliefs:-

^^6- ;g fd mijksDr xkVk la[;k 45d jdck 4 ch?kk 7 foLok dk lhŒ,pŒ 21 ls [kkfjt dj /kkjk 9 esa fuLrkj.k rd iwoZor ugha j[kk x;k rks oknh dh viwrZuh; {kfr gksxh vkSj oknh cs?kj ckj gks tk;sxk tks pdcUnh dh ewy Hkkouk ds foijhr gksxkA /kkjk 9 ds fuLrkj.k ds iwoZ dCtk ifjorZu u fd;k tk;sA Ñik gksxhA**

3. In fact, by the relief claimed itself it was a case under Section 20 and not under Section 9, as relief was that no alteration in possession, to be made prior to deciding Section 9, meaning thereby there was an independent proceedings pending under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

4. In fact, if the relief itself is taken into consideration, rectification sought for was in relation to gata No. 45, having an area of 4 bigha, 7 biswansis of land, which was sought to be made in CH21, it was claimed to be maintained during the pendency of the principal proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. Meaning thereby, the manner in which the relief was modulated, in fact the objection dated 07.02.1998 was not an objection which was preferred under Section 9 of the Act, but rather it was an objection which was having the trappings of under Section 20, seeking a rectification of CH21, which was prepared under Section 24A of the Consolidation of Holdings. But, however, the objection thus preferred by the petitioners was rejected by the Consolidation Officer, by an order dated 27.04.1998. Under a wrongful legal advice being aggrieved against the order dated 27.04.1998, which was rendered by the Court of Consolidation Officer in Case No. 112, the petitioners have filed an Appeal being Appeal No. 38 of 1998, Shivpoojan Vs. Nanhu and Another as to be an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

5. It was this Appeal, which was preferred by the petitioners by invoking Section 11 of the Act, was on the pretext that as if the principal objection which was filed by the petitioners was falling under Section 9, though in fact as already dealt above; it was exclusively an objection under Section 20, because a rectification in CH21 the relief which was sought and even in the relief clause also, it showed that Section 9 proceedings was independently pending consideration and objection thus considered by the Consolidation Officer, was not under Section 9, but it was rather under Section 20 because the rectification of CH21, was sought by the petitioners in their objection.

6. The Appellate Court by the judgement dated 17.11.2004, had directed for making rectification of Gata No. 45 in the revenue records and the talika as appended with the order dated 17.11.2004. The correction made in the talika may itself, would be beyond the competence of the appellate Court while exercising powers under Section 11, which is statutorily contemplated to be an Appeal of an Order under Section 9A2 and not otherwise.

7. The respondents h