Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119431 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1961 of 2025 Petitioner :- Naruddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Kumar Mishra,Rajiv Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Heard Shri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Prem Bahadur Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent. By the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/CRO the application under section 27(3) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been rejected as not maintainable. The petitioner had instituted the proceedings under Section 27(3) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on 30.12.2021 which came to be registered as Case No. 000518 of 2023 (Naruddin Vs. Gram Panchayat) for correction in the land records. Notification under Section 52 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was published on 08.04.2015 bringing the consolidation operations to a halt in the village. The impugned order has non suited the petitioner on the footing that after notification under Section 52 of the of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 the said proceedings were not maintainable before the authorities. Jurisdiction of the authorities to entertain proceedings under Section 27(3) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 after issuance of Section 52 fell for consideration before this Court in Sant Lal and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others reported at 2014 (11) ADJ 15, wherein it was held: "10. Perusal of the aforementioned judgements, relied upon by the contesting respondents, reveals that these have failed to take into consideration the import and effect of the provision of law as contained in section 27(3) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said provision is quoted below: "After the issue of notification under section 52, the Collector shall, instead of the map, field book and record-of-rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, field-book and record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) and the provisions of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, relating to the maintenance and correction of such map, field-book and record-of-rights shall mutatis mutandis apply." 11. It is clear from a bare reading of the provision itself that it specifically provides that once notification under section 52 of the Act has been issued and consolidation operations have come to a close, maintenance and correction of final consolidation map prepared by the Consolidation authorities during consolidation shall be carried out by the Collector in accordance with the provisions as contained in the UP Land Revenue Act. 12. Since there is a specific provision in the Act itself providing for correction of map after de-notification of the village and after close of consolidation operations, the observations is the judgements relied upon by the contesting respondents, which state that section 42-A has overriding effect and there is nothing contrary in the Act which debars orders being passed under this section even after notification under section 52 has been issued, appears to be unjustified. It is evident that the provision contained in section 27(3) of the Act which provides specially that correction of map is to be made in accordance with the provisions of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, once consolidation operations has been closed, was not brought to the notice of the court while it was deciding the aforesaid cases." The judgement in Sant Lal (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The impugned order dated 30.01.2025 being in the teeth of the law laid down by this Court in Sant Lal (supra) is unsustainable in law. The impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/CRO is liable to be set aside and is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector/competent authority under Section 27(3) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for deciding the claim of the petitioner on merits. The exercise shall be completed after noticing all necessary parties in accordance with law preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Dhananjai Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad