JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.11.2013 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar. By the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision of respondent No. 3. 2. Brief facts of the case are that village Siroli Kalan, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar a notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as “Consolidation Act”) was published whereby consolidation proceedings were started. Thereafter, the consolidation proceedings came to an end and a notification for closure of the consolidation operations was issued on 27.07.1996. Section 52 of the Consolidation of Act reads as under:- “52. Close of consolidation operations – (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 the village or villages forming a part of the unit shall then cease to be under consolidation operations. Provided that the issue of the notification under this section shall not affect the powers of the State Government to fix, distribute and recover the cost of operations under this Act. (1-A) The notification issued under sub-section (1) shall be published also in a daily newspaper having circulation in the area and in such other manner as may be considered proper. (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. (3) Where the allotment or lease of any land made before the Consolidation Scheme becomes final under Section 23, is cancelled by an order under sub-section (4) of Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and such order becomes final, then notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of this Act, such order shall be given effect to by such authorities, as may be prescribed, in the following manner, and the consolidation operation shall, for that purpose, be deemed to have not closed, namely- (a) the value of the land which was the subject-matter of such allotment or lease shall first be ascertained in the manner prescribed; (b) the value referred to in clause (a) shall be deducted from the total value of land allotted to the tenure-holder concerned during consolidation proceedings. (c) the tenure-holder shall be entitled, during consolidation proceeding, to land equivalent in valuation to the said land.” 3. After the closure of the said proceedings, respondent No. 3 moved an application on 30.11.2011 before the Consolidation Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, i.e. after 15 years of the closure of such proceedings, for seeking certain incorporation in the revenue records by which they claim title to the agriculture land where a prayer for Amal-Daramat/ incorporation of their right in the revenue records was being made. This application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 02.07.2013 against which the revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and their revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioner has challenge the said order inter alia on grounds that once the consolidation proceedings had admittedly came to an end on 27.07.1996 the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application that too after fifteen years of the closure of the proceedings. 4. The counsel for respondent no. 3 has actually no reply to this assertion. All he states is that his application no. 402 of 1998 was pending even after closure of the proceedings. However, there is no proof to this aspect that the said application was ever filed before the authority concerned prior to the closure of the consolidation proceedings. On the application an order was passed on 29.05.1998, it is alleged, however, there is no such proof of this order and this case is also of the respondents have no substance even before this Court. 5. On the application an order was passed on 29.05.1998, it is alleged, however, there is no such proof of this order and this case is also of the respondents have no substance even before this Court. 5. Once the notification had come to an end under Section 52 of the Consolidation Act, the consolidation authorities no ground to interfere in the matter. Therefore, the exercise of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is totally without jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.11.2013 passed by respondent No. 1 – Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby set aside.