Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36725 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40441 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vishwambhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Daya Shanker Yadav,Mahendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been filed seeking following relief: "I. Issue a writ, order a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1.5.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 in case no. 37 of 2023 having computerized case no. D202316670000037 (Vishwambhar Vs. State) under section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and impugned order dated 30.11.2022 passed by respondent no.3 in Case No. 298/ 2019 having Computerized Case No. T201916670600298 (Report Lekhpal Vs. Vishwambhar) under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to comply with the order dated 28.4.1998 passed by Consolidation Officer in respect of old Araji no. 2474 are 10 Vishwa 8 Dhoor situated at village Talsamdha, Tehsil Aurai, District Bhadohi. II. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case." 3. Challenge to the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 is being sought to be sustained by the petitioner on the ground that an erroneous entry was made by Lekhpal in the records of consolidation proceedings that led an incorrect R.C. Form 19 being submitted which has led to the impugned order being passed. It is his contention that concerned Lekhpal has made wrong entries in C.H. Form 23, 41 and 45 due to which the anomalous situation has arisen whereas in C.H. Form 11, name of the petitioner was correctly recorded. Learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon paragraph no. 48 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (1) ADJ 154. 4. The record of this petition reflects that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 21.03.2023 has set aside an ex-parte order dated 21.02.2011 and has directed to Consolidation Officer to examine the matter and after hearing the parties to submit file of the case through Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid proceedings before the Consolidation Officer related to correction of the record in which erroneous entry has been made due to clerical error. 5. From the record, it appears that the petitioner has raised the issue with regard to the entry in his name being made in CH Form 11 and the fact that the entry so made was pursuant to an order of the Consolidation Officer dated 28.4.1998 in which the father of the petitioner was found to be the bhumidhari of plot no. 2474. The entire matter now is under consideration before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has called for the records of the case. It is also pertinent to mention here that the entry allegedly made in the CH Form 11 has been stated to be erroneously omitted to be made in CH Form 23 and 41/45. 6. Since, the matter is now under the consideration by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it would be in the fitness of things that the revenue authorities stay their hand pending resolution of the matter before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is, therefore, provided that for a period of three months from today the operation and effect of the impugned orders dated 30.11.2022 and 1.5.2024 passed by the Tehsildar and the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), respectively, shall remain stayed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation or the authority competent to decide the matter is directed to take the matter pursuant to the order dated 21.3.2023 passed in Restoration No. 228 under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (Jairam and others vs. State) Mauja Talsamadha, Tehsil Aurai, District Bhadohi) to its logical conclusion within two months from today. The impugned order passed by the Tehsildar and the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) shall abide by the final orders passed by the competent authority or the Deputy Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, in the consolidation proceedings. 7. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 A. V. Singh (Jayant Banerji, J.) Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad