BRIJMANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The contention raised is that the restoration application cannot be entertained in a matter which has been finalized as the village thereafter has been subjected to cancellation under Section 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

(3.) The contention is that the restoration was incompetent and the consolidation authorities would be acting without jurisdiction in entertaining the same. This would require a consideration of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the 1953 Act which makes cancellation subject to any final orders passed during the consolidation operation. It is, therefore, clear that orders which have been finally passed before the cancellation, have to survive. If a person is aggrieved by the survival of such an order, would a restoration lie or not is the issue. It is expected that the consolidation authority shall advert to the aforesaid aspect of the matter before proceeding to decide the restoration application on merits.