JUDGMENT K.P. Singh 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of prohibition directing the respondents nos. 1 to 3 not to start consolidation operation or adjudicate any case or title about any of the plots or chak situate in village Amauli or to make any correction in consolidation records under section 42 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. Both the parties agree that the village in question was under consolidation operation and denotification under section 52 of the UP CH Act has taken place on 3-8-1985. Thereafter the petitioners were served with notices contained in Annexures III and V attached with the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court for the relief mentioned above." Before me the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to restart the consolidation operation or adjudicate upon any title regarding the plots and chaks situate in village Amauli or make any correction in consolidation records under section 42-A of the Act. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the allegations made in paragraphs 4 to 8 of the writ petition and has referred to various provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with a view to support his contention that the consolidation authorities are proceeding against the petitioners without jurisdiction. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to meet the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners by inviting my attention to paragraphs 4, 6 and 8 of the counter affidavit. According to him there are certain clerical errors in the consolidation records, therefore the complained notices contained in Annexure III and V attached with the writ petition were issued to the petitioners. He has emphasized before me that the relevant mistakes could be corrected under section 42-A of the Act and the petitioners are not entitled to make any ligitimate grievance with regard to the notices issued. 4. In rejoinder the learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the rulings Raja Ram v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U. P. Lucknow, 1982 AWC 437 = 1982 RD 387 and Ram Pal Singh v. D. D. C. Meerut, 1986 RD 40. The aforesaid rulings have considered the scope of Section 52 of the Act and of Rule 109-A under the aforesaid Act. Director of Consolidation, U. P. Lucknow, 1982 AWC 437 = 1982 RD 387 and Ram Pal Singh v. D. D. C. Meerut, 1986 RD 40. The aforesaid rulings have considered the scope of Section 52 of the Act and of Rule 109-A under the aforesaid Act. The learned Standing Counsel has admitted that no notification under Section 4-A of the Act has been issued with regard to the village in question. He has also admitted that the denotification under Section 52 of the Act with regard to the village had taken place in the year 1985. It has been stated on behalf of the contesting opposite parties that due to non-availability of correct form, C. H. Form No. 24 were issued to the petitioners mentioning at the top that the proceedings contemplated were under section 42-A of the UP CH Act though wrongly mentioned as Section 42, 5. In my opinion, the learned Standing Counsel for the contesting opposite parties has not succeeded in meeting the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. Section 42-A of the UP CH Act reads as below :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, is satisfied that a clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record exists in any document prepared under any provision of this Act, he shall, either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested, correct the same." Section 52 (1) of the UP CH Act reads as below :- "(1) As soon as may be after fresh maps and records have been prepared under sub-section (1) of Section 27, the State Government shall issue a notification in the official Gazette, that the consolidation operations have been closed in the unit and village or villages or forming part of the unit shall then cease to be under consolidation operations : (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), any order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction in cases of writs filed under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or in cases or proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issue of the notification under sub-section (1), shall be given effect to by such authorities as may be prescribed and the consolidation operations shall, for that purpose be deemed to have not been closed." 6. Rule 109-A under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act reads as below :- "(1) Orders passed in cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 52 shall be given effect to by the consolidation authorities authorised in this behalf under sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act by the Collector of the district in his capacity as a District Deputy Director, if such authorities are functioning in any part of the district at the time. In case there be no such authority the Assistant Collector, Incharge of the sub-division, the Tehsildar, the Naib- Tehsildar, the Supervisor Kanungo, and the Lekhpal of the area to which the case relates shall, respectively, perform the functions and discharge the duties of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officer, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Consolidator, and the Consolition Lekhpal respectively for the purpose of giving effect to the order aforesaid." In the present case C. H. Form 24 issued to the petitioners does not indicate the nature of the mistakes contemplated to be corrected nor they indicate that any order contemplated by the provisions of Section 52 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was to be given effect to. Therefore, I think that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have force and the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to restart consolidation operation or adjudication upon any case or title about the plots or chaks situate in village Amauli or make any correction in the consolidation records under section 42-A of the UP CH Act. 7. Section 5 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act reads as below :- "Upon the publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4 in the official Gazette, the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified thereunder till the publication of notification under section 52 or sub-section (1) of Section 6, as the case may be, ensue in the area to which the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4 relates, namely---," 8. Before me it has been admitted by the counsel for the parties that denotification of the village under section 52 (1) of the UP CH Act has taken place in the year 1985 and the notices of UP CH Form 24 contained in Annexures III and V of the writ petition have been issued in the year 1987, therefore, a heavy burden lay upon the Standing Counsel to satisfy how the opposite parties have any jurisdiction to proceed against the plots and the chaks situate in village Amauli. He has not been able to point out any provision under the Act for the stand taken in the counter affidavit. To my mind, if there is any clerical mistake in the consolidation records, the same may be corrected by the revenue authorities when denotification under section 52 (1) has taken place and no proceeding contemplated by the provisions of UP CH Act were pending on the date of denotification or any proceeding could be said to have been pending after condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act on the date of denotification. In the present case no such stand has been asserted on behalf of the contesting opposite parties. Therefore, I think that the petitioners are right in contending that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioners. For the foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and the opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 in the present writ petition are prohibited from restarting the consolidation operation or adjudicating upon any case or title about any plot or chak situate in village Amauli or make any correction in the consolidation records under section 42-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.