Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41700 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 675 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gyana Devi Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Shrawasti And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shankar Pandey,Ram Kushal Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Rama Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Tushar Gupta holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta for the Gaon Sabha- respondent No.4. 2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that consolidation operations started in Village Ghorma Parsiya, Pargana Bahraich, Tehsil Ikauna, District Shrawasti in the year 1998-99 wherein during the said proceedings opposite party No.s 6 to 8 had been allotted chak No.250 over gata No.355/1, new gata No.639 and gata No.501/3, new gata No.683 which was the original holding of opposite party No.5. 4. According to the petitioner the proceedings for change of possession of the chaks were done in July 2000 and no objections have been raised by opposite party No.5 and it is only after a period of 19 years sometime in 2016 opposite party No.s 5 to 8 filed time barred appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 21 of Consolidation of Holdings Act stating that opposite party No.s 6 to 8 have been allotted his original chak and even possession has not been delivered till date and made prayer for being allotted his original chak. 5. The Settlement of Officer dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation by means of order dated 11.7.2024 against which the appeal was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that there is no dispute in the factual aspect of the matter in as much as opposite party No.5 had been allotted uddan chak which is contrary to the settled principle for allotment under the Consolidation of Holdings Act which ground was sufficient to interfere in the matter and accordingly allowed the revision setting aside the orders dated 20.9.1998 and 11.7.2024 passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 6. 6. The first ground raised by the petitioner in assailing the impugned order is that after publication of the notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.Act the application of opposite party No.5 should not have been considered and accordingly submits that the order is illegal and arbitrary. 7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that mere publication of notification in the present case under Section 52 would not be fatal to the proceedings in as much as when the order was passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation the consolidation operations were admittedly undergoing. It has been submitted that the appeal or revision are continuing proceedings and no fresh proceedings can be initiated after publication of notification under Section 52 but pending proceeding can certainly go on and in this view of the matter there is no bar on an individual from filing appeal or revision in the matter where orders have been passed by Consolidation Officer prior to publication under Section 52. 8. Considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute that the orders dated 20.9.1998 was passed by Consolidation Officer prior to publication of the notification under Section 52 which was passed only in the year 2011 and, therefore, even if the appeal and revision are preferred after publication of the notification the said proceedings will not be a bar and would be deemed continuation of the proceedings which were initiated during the consolidation proceedings and accordingly we do not find any merits in the arguments raised by the petitioner in this regard. 9. The second ground raised by the petitioner with regard to the period of limitation and in this regard it is noticed that Section 48 of U. P. C. H. Act gives wide powers to Deputy Director of Consolidation. No doubt period of limitation has been prescribed under Section 48 (1) (2). Apart from the said provisions sub clause 3 confers suo moto power on the Deputy Director of Consolidation who can call for and examine the records of any case decided or proceedings undertaken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order. 10. Accordingly, considering the fact that the rights in such matters are infringed of the persons who are poor villagers and may be illiterate and may not be able to exercise the legal remedies within the prescribed time, a liberal view deserves to be taken before. A perusal of the impugned order further indicates that even the State respondent admitted the fact that opposite party No.5 has been allotted udaan chak which is contrary to the settled principles under the C.H. Act and accordingly, it is the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who is within his competence to entertain and decide matters even if they are beyond statutory prescription for filing revision. 11. The powers of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 has been discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Nand v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (2000) 3 SCC 103, which reads as under :- 20. The section gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director. It enables him either suo motu on his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act and to pass appropriate orders. These powers have been conferred on the Deputy Director in the widest terms so that the claims of the parties under the Act may be effectively adjudicated upon and determined so as to confer finality to the rights of the parties and the revenue records may be prepared accordingly. 21. Normally, the Deputy Director, in exercise of his powers, is not expected to disturb the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer(Consolidation), but where the findings are perverse, in the sense that they are not supported by the evidence brought on record by the parties or that they are against the weight of evidence, it would be the duty of the Deputy Director to scrutinize the whole case again so as to determine the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders passed by the authorities subordinate to him.In a case, like the present, where the entries in the revenue records are fictitious or forged or they were recorded in contravention of the statutory provisions contained in the U.P. Land Records Manual or other allied statutory provisions, the Deputy Director would have full power under Section 48 to reappraise or re-evaluate the evidence-on- record so as to finally determine the rights of the parties by excluding forged and fictitious revenue entries or entries not made in accordance with law." 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order nor any ground for exercising extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 22.7.2025/RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench