HARIHAR Vs. CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondents 3 to 9.

(2.) The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that an application under Sec. 42A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which was filed almost 3 years after the close of consolidation operations by issuance of a notification under Sec. 52(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, was not maintainable. The consolidation authorities have committed patent illegality in entertaining the application and allowing the same. The orders have been wrongly and illegality affirmed in revision. The orders impugned are therefore, liable to be quashed, as wholly without jurisdiction.

(3.) He has placed upon the following judgements -