HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 702 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, dated 17.10.2025, 6.12.2023 and 9.9.2022, arising out of proceedings under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 10.3.1966, division of holdings was carried out between the petitioner and the second set of respondents in respect of Khata No. 167 and 170. The said order was modified in appeal by the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, dated 19.7.1966. It is contended that at the time of preparation of final records during consolidation proceedings the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was overlooked and the records were finalized on the basis of order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 10.3.1966. The petitioner moved an application under Rule 109 of the Rules for getting the records corrected in accordance with the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, dated 19.7.1966, which has been rejected by the order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 9.9.2022, on the ground that the aforesaid order was passed prior to issuance of notification under Section 52 of the Act, which was issued on 6.3.1971, therefore, the application was not maintainable. The aforesaid order has been upheld in appeal and in revision by the respondent nos. 3 & 2. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Pathak, Suresh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Jagdamba Prasad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 23 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. I have considered the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. The Consolidation Officer while rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 52 of the C.H. Act read with Rule 109 of the Rules of 1954, has held that the order sought to be implemented, dated 19.7.1966, was passed much prior to issuance of notification under Section 52 of the Act and according to circular of the Consolidation Commissioner, dated 8.11.2017, the implementation of such orders, which were passed prior to issuance of notification Section 52 of the Act, shall not be carried out under Rule 109 of the Rules of 1954, but under sub section (3) of Section 27 of the Act by the Collector. 6. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. The reasons recorded by the Consolidation Officer has been reiterated by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation while rejecting the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner. 7. In view of the fact that the appropriate remedy for correction of revenue records after notification under Section 52(1) of the Act on basis of an order passed earlier was under Section 27(3) of the Act, then the application made by the petitioner under Rule 109-A of the Rules was rightly rejected and the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities are justified requiring no interference by this Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application under sub- section (3) of Section 27 of the Act before the Collector for correction of revenue records on the basis of the order dated 19.7.1966. If any such application is made by the petitioner, it shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law. September 23, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu WRIB No. 702 of 2026 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad