VIJENDRA SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20.9.2004 by which revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 2.9.2003 has been confirmed by which Consolidation Officer had granted stay to opposite party to the order of the Consolidator.

(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on provisions of Section 6A (1) and (2) of the U. P. Act No. 3 of 2002. It is submitted that under Section 6A (1) of the Act the Consolidator is empowered to dispose of the matter of succession in the undisputed cases. It is submitted that there is proviso to Section 6A of the Act which says that no case shall be entertained, continued or disposed of under this section after start of the proceeding under Section 8. Further submission is that an order made under Sub -section (1) shall not be a bar to an objection under Section 9 and therefore exercise by Consolidation Officer is not justified. To understand the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner it will be useful to quote entire Section 6A as introduced by U. P. Act No. 3 of 2002 :