DADHIBAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R. C. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder -affidavits have been exchanged, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order passed by Sub -Divisional Officer dated 17th February, 1984 was illegal and amount to setting at naught the judgment given in favour of the petitioners by the High Court and the Apex Court as mentioned above. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that entries in the record were made in pursuance of the final judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16th April, 1977 which was upheld by the High Court and Apex Court. The counsel contended that for giving effect to the order dated 16th April, 1977 proceedings under Section 48 (3) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was undertaken in which after considering the objections of the respondents order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 14th September, 1979 and the entries were made in the record in pursuance of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation on 14th September, 1979. The counsel for the petitioners also stated that proceedings under Rule 109A were also initiated by the petitioners but the said proceedings were dropped by the consolidation authorities themselves with the observation that since the entries have already been incorporated in the record in pursuance of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14th September, 1979, proceedings under Rule 109A will not be required to be undertaken. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has ample power to get the orders implemented and since the entries were being corrected in view of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation himself under Section 48 (3) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act dated 14th September, 1979, there was no illegality in the correction of entries and the Sub -Divisional Officer committed error in setting aside these entries in the record.