JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M.E. Khan, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order 29.03.2016 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation, Hardoi in a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act, 1953. 3. Facts in brief of the present case are that Khata No. 613 situated in village Andhaiya H/o Katri Chhochhpur Pargana Sandi Tehsil Sawayajpur, District Hardoi initially recorded in the name of Ram Bharose S/o Chunni in the revenue record. 4. After his death, on 05.04.2008 as per the provisions of Section 6 (A) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator recorded the same in the name of petitioner. 5. Thereafter a revision has been filed by the contesting respondent, accordingly, a case No. 86 (Ram Pal Vs. Geeta Devi) under Section 48 of the Act, registered before the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Hardoi/respondent No. 1. By order dated 29.03.2016 , respondent No. 1 has set aside the order dated 05.04.2008 passed by Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator and directed that the matter may be examined by the Consolidation Officer on merit, fixed 07.04.2016 as a next date, parties are and directed to appear. 6. Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.03.20016 on the ground that the order dated 05.04.2008 passed by Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator is not amenable under Section 48(1) of the Act. 7. He further submits that the revision filed by the contesting respondent is barred by time, as such the the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation, Hardoi is without jurisdiction as the delay has not been condoned. 8. Lastly, it has been argued by Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner that the Dy. Director of Consolidation has got no jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 05.04.2008 passed by Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator by an order dated 29.03.2016 and give an direction to the Consolidation Officer to decide on merit. 9. Accordingly, he submits that impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. Director of Consolidation has got no jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 05.04.2008 passed by Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator by an order dated 29.03.2016 and give an direction to the Consolidation Officer to decide on merit. 9. Accordingly, he submits that impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. Sri M.E. Khan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while rebutting the said contention (raised by learned counsel for petitioner) submits that as per the provisions of Section 6(A) of the Act, the Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator has got very limited power to the extent to record name of the persons in the revenue record when the case is uncontested as in the present case there is contest one, so the order dated 05.04.2008 passed by Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator is without jurisdiction and void ab initio, as such ther ei sno limitation in challenging the same. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that as per the provisions of Section 48 (1) of the Act, the Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any Subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard may make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. So, the order dated 05.04.2008 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation, Hardoi/respondent No. 1 is perfectly valid, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 13. So, the order dated 05.04.2008 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation, Hardoi/respondent No. 1 is perfectly valid, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 13. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through the provisions of Section 6(A) of the Act quoted as under: - "special provision with respect to undisputed succession or transfer -(1) After the publication of notification udner sub-section (2) of Section 4 or Section 4-A and before start of the proceeding under Section 8, a case of undisputed succession shall be disposed of by teh Consolidator, and a case of undisputed mutation on the basis of trnsfer shall be disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, in such manner and after making such inquiry as may be prescribed : Provided that no case shall be entertained, continued or disposed of under this section after start of the proceeding under Section 8. (2) An order made under sub-section (1) shall not be a bar to an objection under Section 9." 14. From the bare perusal of Section 6(A) of the Act is clear that the power has been given to the Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator to decide undisputed case of succession or transfer etc. 15. Thus, the intention of legislation giving said power to Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator under Section 6(A) of the Act appears that if the case is undisputed then the order can be passed. And if the dispute arises in respect to succession or transfer of a property then the Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator has got no power under Section 6(A) (1) to pass an order thereby directing that a particular land to be mutated in the name of a particular person. 16. In other words, it can be said that if a dispute arises and if the party claiming benefit of the order of Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator has to satisfy that the contesting respondent has got no right to be recorded in their name then Consolidation Officer has no right to pass on order for recording the names of the persons in revenue record. 17. 17. Further Section 6(A) of the Act has been indicated by lagislator only for undisputed case to provide speedy remedy for recording the names but that can be permitted misuse for any litigation, hence the right of the parties has to be decided after contest, the appropriate authority to decide the same under Section 9(A)(2) of the Act i.e. Consolidation Officer. 18. In the present case, from the material on record, it is not in dispute that a claim has been made by the contesting respondent for recording of their name in respect to the Khata No. 1613 which initially belongs to Ram Bharose on the basis of Will deed, so there exists a dispute in the present case. 19. Further, in the present case, Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator passed order dated 05.04.2008 without giving any opportunity to the contesting respondents. Once there is a bar as provided by the legislation that if there is dispute in respect to ownership/recording of the names of the parties then the Chakbandi Kart/Consolidation Officer has no power to pass an order under Section 6 (A) of the Act for recording the name of a person in the revenue record, so order dated 05.04.2008 passed by Consolidation Officer is without jurisdiction. 20. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties that pweer to passing of the order dated 29.03.2016 is contrary to law and has got no force because this Court in the case of Jainulabdin vs. Dy. Dir of Consolidation and other connected matter 1974 RD page 163, held as under : - "so far as the first submission is concerned, it is true that the Consolidation Officer does not appear to have passed any separate order condoning the delay. Even so, he proceeded to decide the objections on merits. The parties were given full opportunity to produce their evidence and thereafter the Consolidation Officer decided the case on merits. The petitioners cannot be said to have been put to any prejudice simply because no separate order was passed by the Consolidation Officer condoning the delay. In the circumstances of the case the Consolidation Officer will be deemed to have condoned the delay." (See Davinder Pal Sehgal and another vs. M/s. Partap Steel Rolling Mills P. Ltd. and others AIR 2002 Supreme Court 451)." 21. In the circumstances of the case the Consolidation Officer will be deemed to have condoned the delay." (See Davinder Pal Sehgal and another vs. M/s. Partap Steel Rolling Mills P. Ltd. and others AIR 2002 Supreme Court 451)." 21. Accordingly, the argument as raised by learned counsel for petitioner that the revision filed by the contesting respondent against the order dated 05.04.2008 is barred by limitation has got no force and the order dated 05.04.2008 passed by Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator under Section 6(A) is an ex-parte order, so the same is against the principles of natural justice keeping the said facts as well as the settled position of law when substantial justice is pitted against a technical justice the way should be given to the substantial justice, and the petitioner will have right to prove his case in a proceeding under Section 9(a) of the Act to establish his right, at this stage no legal injury has been cause to him, the same is rejected . 22. Next argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner that the order passed by Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator dated 05.04.2008 in a proceeding under Section 6(A) of the Act is not reverseable under Section 48(1) of the Act gas also got no force because from the bare reading of Section 6(A) of the Act it transpires that the said section came into operation after the publication of notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4 or Section 4-A and before start of the proceeding under Section 8 that is to say when the consolidation proceeding came into operation, so keeping in view the said facts, the provisions of Section 48(1) read with Explanation therein, the Dy. Director of Consolidation has got power to adjudicate the validity and correctness of the orders passed by Consolidation Officer as per per Section 48 of the Act has no power to examine record of any case, decide a proceeding taken by any Sub-Ordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality of the proceeding or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order and the Chakbandi Karta/Consolidator is Sub-ordinate authority to the Dy. Director of Consolidation, so the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Hardoi/respondent No. 1. 23. Director of Consolidation, so the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Hardoi/respondent No. 1. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed with the direction that it will be open to the parties to file their objection before the Consolidation Office, the same may be decided in accordance with law.