MALTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.02.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer under Sec. 42(A) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, order dated 10.01.2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109(A) of the Rules. The petitioner also prays for quashing of the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 1754 {Kanchan Devi Vs. Malti Devi) and for quashing of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Sec. 41(A) of Consolidation of Holdings Act as well as the Rule 109 of the Rules giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available to her under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

(3.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the consolidation operations in her village were closed and Sec. 52 notification was issued on 04.06.1999. Under some misconceived advice of her lawyer, the petitioner had filed an application under Sec. 42(A) of the Act thereafter on 21.10.1999. A report was summoned from the Assistant Consolidation Officer and thereafter the order dated 06.02.2000 was passed after the Consolidation Officer wrongly exercising his jurisdiction.