JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rajesh Yadav for the Gaon Sabha and Shri Ramesh Pundir for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 11.06.2015 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector (F & R), Saharanpur in revision no. 562 (Manga and Others v. Shyamu and others). 3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the village Janpur @ Mazri was brought under consolidation operations by means of a notification issued in the year 1987 and village Shakarpur Shakraur Ahatmal was brought under consolidation operations in the year 1989. There was a boundary dispute between the two villages. This dispute was decided by the Consolidation Officer (the CO) by an order dated 18.10.1997 holding that the map prepared by the Rectangulation Department was a baseless map and no reliance could be placed on it. This order remained unchallenged and thereafter the consolidation operations in the villages were cancelled by means of a notification under Section 6 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (in short, the Act) made in the year 2000. Subsequently fresh notifications have been issued bringing the units under consolidation operations again. 4. In this fresh round of the consolidation operations the earlier map prepared by the Rectangulation Department which had been held by the CO to be a baseless and incorrect map is again being relied upon for the purposes of the consolidation operations. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that earlier order passed by the CO on 18.10.1997 had attained finality long before consolidation operations were cancelled in the year 2000 and, therefore, the same map which had been held to be an incorrect and baseless map cannot be made the base of the consolidation operations which have been restarted subsequently. In view of this discrepancy in the approach of the respondent and the consolidation authorities, the petitioner filed a revision relying upon the order dated 18.10.1997 and praying for his compliance. This revision has been dismissed by the impugned order holding the revision to be not maintainable and, therefore, the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned order. This revision has been dismissed by the impugned order holding the revision to be not maintainable and, therefore, the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned order. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been averred in paragraph 16 that the plots of the petitioner are not situated in village Janpur @ Mazri and in paragraph 17 it has been averred that the settlement map of Shakarpur Shakraur Ahatmal relating to 1326 fasli has not been amended in the year 1989. 7. The controversy involved in the writ petition is as to whether an order passed by the CO on 18.10.1997 and which had remained unchallenged prior to the cancellation of consolidation operations by means of a notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act made in the year 2000, would stand protected and would be held to be final and binding in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act. 8. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 which is relevant for deciding the controversy in the writ petition is quoted herein below: - "[(2) Where a [notification] has been cancelled in respect of any unit under sub-section (1), such area shall, subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, cease to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation]." 9. In my considered opinion, the provision quoted above is absolutely categorical. It provides that any order which has attained finality prior to the cancellation of the consolidation operations by means of a notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act is final and binding and must be given effect to in the revenue records. 10. In such view of the matter, the order dated 18.10.1997 has attained finality because none of the counsel for the petitioner nor learned Standing Counsel have been able to show that this order was ever challenged by any stage. Since the notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act was issued more than three years after the orders was passed, the period of limitation for challenging the order dated 18.10.1997 had expired long before the consolidation operations were cancelled. Therefore the order dated 18.10.1997 must necessarily to be held to have attained finality. Since the notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act was issued more than three years after the orders was passed, the period of limitation for challenging the order dated 18.10.1997 had expired long before the consolidation operations were cancelled. Therefore the order dated 18.10.1997 must necessarily to be held to have attained finality. For the same reason, the map which was prepared by the Rectangulation Department and on the basis of which consolidation operations were being conducted in the earlier round of the consolidation operations having been held to be an incorrect and baseless map, the same cannot the basis of the consolidation operations in the subsequent round of the consolidation operations which are pending as on date. 11. Accordingly and for the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.06.2015 passed by the DDC/ADM (F& R) is hereby quashed. 12. A mandamus is issued to the consolidation authorities to proceed with the consolidation operations in consonance with the order dated 18.10.1997 passed by the CO whereby the map prepared by the Rectangulation Department had been held to be a baseless and an incorrect map. 13. The connected Writ Petition No. 38055 of 2015 has been filed seeking the following relief: - "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the Nature of Mandamus Commanding the Respondent Authorities to complete the demarcation and delivery of possession proceedings with regards to the petitioners in pursuance to the already finalised consolidation Scheme of the Village-Jaanpur @ Majari, Pargana-Gangoh, Tehsil-Nakud, District Saharanpur, under Section 23 of U.P.C.H. Act. amongst the tenure holders of the village, so the mandatory provisions of under Section 28 of the U.P.C.H. Act may be complied with." 14. It, therefore, emerges that the petitioners in this writ petition are seeking implementation of the orders passed in chak allotment proceedings and for delivery of possession in accordance, thereto. 15. The implementation sought is of the orders passed in chak allotment proceedings which have been undertaken on the basis of the map prepared by the Rectangulation Department which has herein above been held by me to be a baseless and incorrect map. 15. The implementation sought is of the orders passed in chak allotment proceedings which have been undertaken on the basis of the map prepared by the Rectangulation Department which has herein above been held by me to be a baseless and incorrect map. It was so held by the CO vide order dated 18.10.1997 which has been held by me to have become final prior to be cancellation of the consolidation operations by issuance of the notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act and which order is, therefore, saved by sub-section (2) of Section 6. 16. It has, therefore, evident that implementation of orders passed by the consolidation authorities in chak allotment proceedings drawn on the basis of a baseless and incorrect map are sought. 17. Under the circumstances, therefore, the mandamus prayed for is, in my considered opinion, not liable to be issued. 18. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 19. Accordingly the writ petition no. 38055 of 2015 is dismissed. Writ Petition no. 44217 is allowed and a mandamus is issued to the consolidation authorities not to proceed with consolidation operations on the basis of the map prepared by the Rectangulation Department which is a baseless and an incorrect map. According the writ petition no. 44217 of 2015 is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.