Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46247 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 736 of 2025 Petitioner :- Somai And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Danish Rasheed Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Haroon Rasheed, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 6 and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.7/ Land Management Committee. 2. In the present case controversy relates to Khata No. 56 Ka Old Khasra Gata No. 268/3/0.46 Hectare, 1363/0.47 and Gata No. 278/Sa, 258/0.36, 1420 Min. /0.71 and 1430 Min / 0.40, situated at Village Chhidkuri, Pargana Hisampur, Tehsil Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, which was recorded in the name of Dubar son of Kali as Bhumidhar with transferable rights. 3. It is during the consolidation proceedings new numbers were allowed to the aforesaid Gata and the New Gata No.519/0.81 acre and 258/36 was given new number as519/0.81 acre. Similarly old gata no. 278/0.23 was given new gata no. 542/1.21 and both the aforesaid new gata no. 519/0.81 and 542/1.21 acre have been recorded in C.H. 45 at Khata No. 465 as Naveen Parti. 4. Against the said order, which according to the petitioners came to the knowledge in the year 2019 application under Section 42-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed before the Consolidation Officer-II, Bahraich, was filed on 4.9.2019, which was decided on 8.9.2021 thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners have filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which has also been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 28.8.2024. 5. The only ground for not accepting the application of the petitioners is that the consolidation operations had concluded by issuance of Notification under Section 52 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, on 4.1.1999 and after issuance of notification subject to provisions of Section 52, the jurisdictional power of Consolidation Authority came to an end and power to exercise under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioners having moved an application after 20 years was clearly time barred and even Consolidation Authorities did not have any jurisdiction to entertain and pass any order of the same. 6. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court and the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Consolidation No. 763 of 2005, Sripal and 2 others Vs. D.D.C., Raebareli and 4 others, is quoted herein below:- "In view of the above discussion, even though no limitation is prescribed for correction under section 42-A, the Revisional Court cannot be faulted for having arrived at the conclusion, inter alia, that the proceedings under section 42-A after de- notification under section 52 were not maintainable, and the remedy, if any, was under section 28 or 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act 1901, however, in this regard the Court would like to add a caveat, as Maiku had initiated a regular suit under section 229-B, therefore, it would have to be seen as to what was the decision rendered therein and its effect on the maintainability of subsequent proceedings under section 28 or 33/39. Subject to this condition, if the contention of the petitioner is correct i.e. without there being any order of any Consolidation Authority in favour of Jalpa or Ram Avtar for recording of their names in respect of Basic Year Khata No.26, an entry was made in their favour in respect of the said Khata in C.H. Form 11 which continued in C.H. Form 23, 41 and 45 then it was certainly a fundamental error which would go to the root of the matter as has also been observed by the Revisional Court and in such a situation the records would be liable to correction so as to ensure substantial justice, as, in such a factual scenario the entry would be without any basis i.e. fake entry, and in such a situation injustice cannot be allowed to be perpetrated. In such a case remedy would be under section 33/39 of the Act 1901 before the Collector who also happens to be the District Deputy Director, Consolidation in view of the above discussion and the deficiency in the material before it, especially the absence of order dated 19.12.1970 and the judgment in the suit under section 229-B as also its plaint, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unable to consider the pleas raised herein or interfere with the order of the revisional Court, which it finds to be just and proper, subject of course to the above observations, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed." 7. Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid judgment after Notification under Section 52, the application under Section 42-A is not maintainable, but in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioners will not be read remedy-less and when they have option to move an appropriate application under Section 32 of the U.P. Revenue Code. 8. Subject to the aforesaid observations, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly the petition being bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench