Consolidation authorities have the jurisdiction to record the names of persons claiming rights under Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as such rights are conferred by statute rather than by an authority.

1. Heard Sri Ramakant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Amit Gupta, holding brief of Sri B. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by respondent nos.2, 3 and 4, dated 23.12.1997, 07.12.2023 and 29.10.2025, respectively, arising out of proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 .

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of their possession over plot nos.545/2, they filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming rights under Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The aforesaid objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.12.1997. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer Consolidation was allowed by the order dated 12.07.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after 24 years the respondent no.6 filed a restoration application for setting aside the order dated 12.07.1999, which was allowed by the order dated 07.12.2023, passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, setting aside the aforesaid order and restoring the appeal to its original number.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the application for restoration having been filed after 24 years was highly time barred and could not have been allowed at the instance of respondent no.6, who admittedly is claiming right on the basis of sale deed executed by Haridwar and another, who also claimed possession over the said land without any document of title. Once the Settlement Officer Consolidation came to the conclusion that plot no.545/2 was the gaon sabha land, the recall application on behalf of respondent no.6 was not maintainable. The respondent no.2 has erred in rejecting the revision only on the ground that the appeal is still to be decided on merits, therefore, no interference is required with the order dated 07.12.2023.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 has contended that he is transferee of Haridwar and another whose rights were recognized over plot no.545/2 area 0.089 hectares and only after obtaining permission from the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the sale deed dated 25.03.2023 was executed. Till date, no notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been published in the village where land in dispute is situated. He further submits that there is no other land in plot no.545/2 over which any right could have been granted to the petitioner, therefore, the order dated 12.07.1999 was liable to be set aside, having been passed behind back of persons already in possession over the said plot and recorded in the revenue records at the start of consolidation proceedings.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Perusal of the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 07.12.2023 shows that the said order has been passed on the ground that the order dated 12.07.1999 appears to be suspicious, however, he has not rejected the claim of petitioner and has only restored the appeal to its original number for being decided a