SHEESH RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 17th March, 1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad by which he has rejected the application of the petitioners dated 3.7.1998 under Section 42-A read with Section 52 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in a consolidation proceeding held in village Mahiuddinpur Mainapur, Pargana Jalalabad, Tehsil and District, Ghaziabad chaks were allotted. THE proceeding in respect of the allotment of the chak had become final. However, it is not clear that up to what stage the same had become final but there is no dispute in this regard in the present petition. It appears that the petitioners had moved an application dated 28.4.1972 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Meerut under Section 42-A of the Act for the correction of the mistake. Vide order dated 28.4.1972 the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Meerut observed that on the application being made by some of the persons he himself, made spot inspection and there appears to be some mistake which requires rectification. He accordingly referred the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Meerut-ll for giving the detailed report after the enquiry of the record. It appears that several persons moved application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Meerut in case No. 148/60, Atar Singh and others v. State stating therein that there were errors in the final Shij'ra prepared for village Mohiuddinpur Mainapur. THE Settlement Officer Consolidation, Meerut on the said application in its order dated 29.11.1976 observed as follows: "I got the records examined by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. THE final map .does not tally with the confirmed map. This is an apparent clerical error on the face of the record and can be corrected under Section 42-A of the U.P. C.H. Act. But the errors in the map need a thorough scrutiny. THE file is, therefore, sent to the Court of the C.O. for scrutinizing the errors and correcting them under Section 42- A of the U.P. C.H. Act, which confers simultaneous jurisdiction."

(3.) IT appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad vide its order dated 23.12.1986 has held that the allotment of the chak by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is corrected but the final report prepared on the basis of the revisional order is incorrect which is clear from the report of the Consolidation Officer, Ghaziabad dated 31.12.1985 and Settlement Officer Consolidation report dated 4.1.1986. According to him, the map is required to be corrected under Section 48 (3) of the Act because no proper order has been passed by the Court below. He further held that there is no need of any correction under Section 48 (3) of the Act while the Settlement Officer Consolidation is a competent authority to correct the map after hearing the parties and accordingly he has decided the reference and sent back the record to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ghaziabad.