Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49301 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 785 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kafeel Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Vatsa Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh Vastsa, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2.It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that consolidation proceedings were held in Village - Kasba Sultanpur, Pargana - Barosa, Tehsil - Sadar, District - Sultanpur and there is no dispute that the said consoldation concluded by issuance of a notification U/S 52 of Consolidation of Holding Act. It is after conclusion of the aforesaid consolidation operations that the petitioner filed an application U/S 48 (3) of Consolidation of Holding Act before the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur for correction of his map as he was aggrieved by the fact that Gata No. 43/0.044 and Gata No. 431/0.129 hect has been carved out from the petitioner gata No. 437/0307 hect. and gata No. 1676/646 area 0.41 hect. without any order of the competent court and thereby minimizing the area of the petitioner by 0.173 hectare. 3. The Dy. Director of Consolidation has rejected the application stating that, he does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as raised by the petitioner considering the fact that consolidation operations are over and notification U/S 52 of Consolidation of Holding Act has already been issued. He has further opined that the petitioner in any case has a remedy by moving an appropriate application U/S 30, 31 and 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the revenue authorities and in the aforesaid circumstances he has rejected the application of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in case an error has been committed by the revenue authorities during the consolidation operations and the same can be rectified U/S 48 (3) of Consolidation of Holding Act and therefore submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be interference by this Court. 5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation. It has been submitted that a bare reading of Section 52 of Consolidation of Holding Act would indicate that on issuance of a notification U/S 52 of Consolidation of Holding Act the powers vested in various authorities cease and only where proceedings are pending the same shall be continued as per Section 52 (2) of Consolidation of Holding Act. 6. In the present case clearly on the date when the petitioner had moved an application U/S 48(3) of Act of 1953, no proceedings were pending and hence de novo proceedings after issuance of a notification U/S 52 of Act of 1953 would not be maintainable and accordingly this Court also does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 7. Apart from the above, section 27(3) Consolidation of Holding Act clearly indicates that after issuance of a notification U/S 52 of Consolidation of Holding Act the Collector shall instead of the map, filed-book and record of rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, field- book and record of rights prepared in accordance with th provisions of sub-section (1) and the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, relating to the maintenance and correction of such map, field-book and record-of-rights shall mutatis mutandis apply. Therefore clearly the grievance, if any, of the petitioner could have been redressed by moving an appropriate application U/S 30, 31 and 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 8. In light of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench