HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 2814 of 2025 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N. Pathak, learned counsel for the State and Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 6-Gaon Sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that village in question was notified under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act in the year 1972. The name of the petitioner/Raghuvir Singh was ordered to be recorded over the plot in question under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act by Consolidation Officer, Agra vide order dated 24.01.2012. The village in question has been notified under Section 6 of the U.P.C.H. Act on 06.06.2012. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to give effect the order dated 06.06.2012 and update the revenue records as per provisions given U/s 6(2)/52(2) of the C.H. Act and under Rule 109(1) and 109(A-1) of the C.H. Rules read with under Sections 31 to 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code Rules, 2006 and decide the representation/application dated 08.08.2024 (annexure no. 6 to the writ petition) as per directing dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) strictly in accordance with law within the stipulated period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court for the ends and interest of justice. II. Issue any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions, to which the Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the instant case; in favour of the petitioners. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avinash Chandra Srivastava, C.S.C. Raghuvir Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) III. Award the costs of the petition to the petitioners. 4 This Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 directed the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instruction in the matter. 5. In compliance of the order of this Court, instructions have been sent by the authorities, which are taken on record. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the order dated 24.01.2012 passed by Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act has attained finality before issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, as such the name of petitioners should be recorded in revenue record in view of the provisions contained under Section 6(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. He submitted that the under the legal advice the petitioner has initiated the proceeding before Consolidation authorities for recording their name in the revenue record. He next submitted that appropriate direction be issued for recording the name of petitioners over the plot in question on the basis of final order dated 24.01.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer. 7. Sri B.N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that the claim of the petitioner shall be examined by the authorities in accordance with law. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that village in question was notified under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act in the year 1972 and notification under Section 6 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was issued on 06.06.2012. 10. There is also no dispute about the fact that order for the recording the name of petitioner under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act was passed by Consolidation Officer on 24.01.2012 before the issuance of notification under Section 6 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 11. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Section 6 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act is relevant, which is as under:- "Section 6 - Cancellation of notification under Section 4 (1)........ (2) Where 1[notification] has been cancelled in respect of any unit under sub-section (1), such area shall, subject to the final order relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, cease to be under consolidation operation with effect from the date of the cancellation." WRIB No. 2814 of 2025 2 12. Perusal of the operative portion of the order dated 24.01.2012 passed under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act will be also relevant, which is as under:- "आदेश ग्राम थाना शंकरद्वारी तह० फतेहाबाद, िजला, आगरा के खाता संख्या 502 के गाता संख्या 630/14 रकवा 1-16-0 व 2188/52 रकवा 2-6-0 कु ल रकवा 4-2-0 लगानी 8-20 से िवक्रे ता होती लाल पुत्र भरत िसह िनवासी -गली धमर्पाल थाना शंकरद्वारी का नाम िनरस्त करके क्रे ता रघुवीर िसह पुत्र गनन्त िसह िनवासी नयावास भाग शंकरहारी का नाम बेनामा सं 4274 िदनांक 13/7/10 के अनुसार बतौर बनामादार संक्रमणीय भूिमधर अंिकत हो। पत्रावली वाद अमलदरामद दािखल दफ्तर हो चकबन्दी अिधकारी 24.01.2012 आगरा ।" 13. The date of notification issued under Section 6(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act as mentioned in the instruction sent by the State is also 06.06.2012 and order for recording the name of petitioner was passed on 24.01.2012 that is before issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act. 14. Considering the provisions contained under Section 6 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, the petitioners are entitled to be recorded over the plot in question. 15. The writ petition is allowed and respondent no. 2/District Magistrate, Agra/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra is directed to record the name of petitioner over the plot in question within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him and issue a copy of Khatauni to petitioners, accordingly. September 8, 2025 Neetu WRIB No. 2814 of 2025 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad