JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Mohmmad Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohmmad Aslam Khan, for the petitioners and Sri Girish Chandra Sinha, for contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 06.01.2014 and Additional Commissioner, dated 22.08.2014, passed in proceeding under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Pappu and Firoz (the petitioners) filed an application (registered as Case No. 115) (at present registered as Case No. 19/4/21) under Section 33/39 of the Act, for deleting the name of Mohammad Khan son of Madde Khan from plot 754 (area 0.076 hectare), recorded in khata 145 and 754 (area 0.7900 hectare), recorded in khata 251 (along with other plots) of village Unnao (outside of municipal limit), tahsil and district Unnao, in khatauni 1416 F-1421 F. It has been stated by the petitioners that Evaz Khan, their grand father, was sole tenure holder of plot 754 (area 3-8-10 bigha) since before 1360 F. In consolidation also name of Evaz Khan alone was recorded over plot 754 in CH Form-45 and same entry continued in khatauni 1388 F-1394 F. Evaz Khan was co-tenure holder along with Mohammad Khan son of Madde of plots 725 and 1142 and some other plots, which were recorded in separate khata in their names. However, plots 754 was wrongly came to be recorded in khata 145 and 251 of the khatauni 1316 F-1321 F, jointly in the names of Evaz Khan and Mohammad Khan, without order of competent authority. Accordingly it was prayed that a separate khata of plot 754 be made in their names. 4. On the aforesaid application, Tahsildar submitted his report dated 07.09.2012, submitting that Evaz Khan had two sons Rahmat Khan and Heenga Khan. The petitioners are sons of Heenga Khan while Mohd. Nafees, Mohd. Rais and Mohd. Haseen were sons of Rahmat Khan and Smt. Bano Begum was widow of Rahmat Khan (now arrayed as respondents-6 to 9). Names of respondents-6 to 9 be also mutated as the heirs of Evaz Khan. Mohd. Irfan Khan, Mohd. The petitioners are sons of Heenga Khan while Mohd. Nafees, Mohd. Rais and Mohd. Haseen were sons of Rahmat Khan and Smt. Bano Begum was widow of Rahmat Khan (now arrayed as respondents-6 to 9). Names of respondents-6 to 9 be also mutated as the heirs of Evaz Khan. Mohd. Irfan Khan, Mohd. Naseem Khan and Rehan Parvez (respondents-4 and 5) have filed their objection dated 05.05.2012, stating that Mohammad Khan, recorded tenure holder has died leaving behind him, his heirs Siddiq Khan, Naseem Khan sons of Azim Khan, Smt. Ahmad Khatoon wife of Shamim Khan, Irfan Khan and Rehan Parvez sons of Suleman Khan and their names be mutated as his heirs. Saeed Khan son of Mehandi Hasan did not belong to their family. His name came to be recorded as he had purchased 6 biswa land from the heirs of Rahmat Khan. Plot 754 was the land from the time of common ancestor Madde Khan and after his death it was jointly inherited by his sons Mohammad Khan and Evaz Khan. The name of Mohammad Khan was rightly recorded over the land in dispute. He has also mentioned in the report that the petitioners jointly had ¼ share, in the land in dispute. According to their share, they had executed sale deeds dated 18.10.2011 and 12.01.2012 and left with no interest in the land in dispute as such they had no locus standi to file the application. A civil suit was also pending between the parties, in respect of the land in dispute. 5. Sub-Divisional Officer, however, by order dated 29.11.2012 called for a fresh report, from Tahsildar, who has also submitted fresh report dated 04.12.2012, recommending for correction of record. Respondent-4 and 5 filed an application on 15.12.2012 for recall of order dated 29.11.2012, which was rejected by Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 04.01.2013. Respondent-4 and 5 filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 766 LR of 2012-13) from order dated 04.01.2013 before Board of Revenue U.P. The petitioners filed an application dated 08.04.2013, in the revision, stating that names of branch of Mohammad Khan were rightly recorded over the land in dispute and application under Section 33/39 was filed by them under some confusion. Now they do not want to press their application. As such the revision and application be dismissed of accordingly. Now they do not want to press their application. As such the revision and application be dismissed of accordingly. Board of Revenue, U.P., however dismissed the revision, by order dated 23.09.2013, directing Sub-Divisional Officer to decide other grounds raised in revision. 6. After order dated 23.09.2013, when the case was taken up by Sub-Divisional Officer, the counsel for the petitioners made endorsement on the original application of the petitioners that they do not want to press the application. Thereafter, the petitioners along with an affidavit filed an application dated 06.11.2013, for dismissing their original application as not pressed. At this stage, respondents-6 to 9 filed an application for their impleadment, in the case and grant of leave to continue the case. They also filed objection in withdrawal application of the petitioners. Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 06.01.2014, held that interest of Mohd. Rais and others (respondents-6 to 9) are also involved in the disputed land. The case related to correction of record as such Sub-Divisional Officer is duty bound to correct the record after taking evidence of the parties. On these findings, he dismissed withdrawal application of the petitioners and allowed impleadment application of Mohd. Rais and others (respondents-6 to 9) on the cost of Rs. 100/-. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 201410000088) against aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by his order dated 22.08.2014 found that suo moto proceeding for correction of revenue records can be conducted by Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 33/39 of the Act as such no jurisdictional error has been committed by Sub-Divisional Officer in rejecting withdrawal application of the petitioner and proceeding with the case. On these findings, he dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed original application under Section 33/39 of the Act, on which proceeding was initiated. Now the petitioners were satisfied that their application was filed under some misconception as such they filed application dated 06.11.2013, for dismissing their original application as withdrawn. Respondents-1 and 2 have illegally rejected the application. The petitioners were in the status of plaintiff, who were dominus litis. It was open for them to choose as against whom they had to file their case. Respondents-1 and 2 have illegally rejected the application. The petitioners were in the status of plaintiff, who were dominus litis. It was open for them to choose as against whom they had to file their case. Respondent-6 to 9 filed their application for impleadment at the stage, when the petitioners had already filed their withdrawal application in the revision and in the case. Instead of dismissing the case as withdrawn, impleadment application has been illegally allowed. The village has undergone into consolidation operation. Entry of the name of Mohammad Khan continued in consolidation. Claim for deleting the name of Mohammad Khan after close of consolidation, is barred under Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The case was filed under some confusion but at present the petitioners do not want to proceed with the case, which is wastage of time of Court and money of the petitioners. Respondents- 6 to 9 have sold their share in the land in dispute and now they left with no interest, they were neither necessary nor proper parties. Their impleadment application were wrongly allowed. The orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Relevant provisions of the Act are quoted below: - Section-32. Record of rights - [There shall be a record of rights for each village subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed by rules made under the provisions of Section 234. The record of rights shall consist of a register of all persons cultivating or otherwise occupying land specifying the particulars required by Section 55] Section 33. The annual registers. - (1) The collector shall maintain the record of rights, and for that purpose shall annually, or at such longer intervals as the [State Government] may prescribed, cause to be prepared an amended [register mentioned in Section 32.] The [register] so prepared shall be called the annual register. The annual registers. - (1) The collector shall maintain the record of rights, and for that purpose shall annually, or at such longer intervals as the [State Government] may prescribed, cause to be prepared an amended [register mentioned in Section 32.] The [register] so prepared shall be called the annual register. [(2) The Collector shall cause to be recorded in the annual register - (a) all successions and transfers in accordance with the provisions of Section 35; or (b) other changes that may take place in respect of any land; and shall also correct all errors and omissions in accordance with the provisions of Section 39: Provided that the power to record a change under clause (b) shall not be construed to include the power to decide a dispute involving any question of title.] (3) [No such change or transaction shall be recorded without the order of the Collector or as hereinafter provided, of the Tahsildar or [the Kanungo]. ] [(4) The Collector shall cause to be prepared and supplied to every person recorded as bhumidhar, whether with or without transferable right, assami or Government Lessess a Kisan Bahi (Pass book) which shall contain- (a) such extract from the annual register prepared under subsection (1) relating to all holdings of which he is so recorded either solely or jointly with others); (b) details of grant sanctioned to him; and (c) such other particulars as may be prescribed ; Provided that in the case of joint holdings it shall be sufficient for the purpose of this sub-section of Kisan Bahi (Pass book ) is supplied to such one or more of the recorded co-sharers as may be prescribed. (4-A) The Kisan Bahi (Pass book) referred to in sub-section (4) shall be prepared in such manner and on payment of such fee, which shall be realisable as arrears of land revenue, as may be prescribed. (5) Every such person shall be entitled, without payment of any extra fee, to get any amendment made in the annual register under sub-section (2) incorporated in his Kisan bahi (Pass book)]. (5) Every such person shall be entitled, without payment of any extra fee, to get any amendment made in the annual register under sub-section (2) incorporated in his Kisan bahi (Pass book)]. (6) The State Government may make rules to carry out the purposes of this section, including, in particular, rules, prescribing the mode of reception in evidence, and of proof in judicial proceedings, of entries in the [Kisan Bahi (Pass book)], and the mode of its revision and authentication up to date and for issue of duplicate copies thereof, and the fees, if any, to be charged for any of the said purposes. (7) In this section, 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules mad by the State Government. (8) Nothing in sub-sections (4) to (7) shall apply in relation to any area which is either under consolidation operations or under record operations] Section- 39, Correction of mistakes in the annual register.- (1) An application for correction of any error or omission in the annual register shall be made to be Tahsildar. (2) On receiving an application under sub-section (1) or any error or omission in the annual register coming to his knowledge otherwise, the Tahsildar shall make such inquiry as appears necessary and then refer the case to the Collector, who shall dispose it of, after deciding the dispute in accordance with the provisions of Section 40. [Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be construed to empower the Collector to decide a dispute involving any question of title] (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall prevail, notwithstanding anything contained in the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 9. Additional Commissioner found that proceedings under the Act for correction of record can be initiated/continued exercising suo moto jurisdiction. Findings in this respect does not suffer from any illegality. The petitioners have given pedigree of his family in paragraph-2 of the writ petition. From which it is proved that respondents-6 to 9 are also heirs of Avaz Khan, through whom the petitioners are also deriving their title over the land in dispute. Merely by selling their share in land in dispute, they are not deprived to contest any proceeding in respect of land in dispute and establish their title over it. The arguments that they are neither necessary nor proper party is not liable to be accepted. Merely by selling their share in land in dispute, they are not deprived to contest any proceeding in respect of land in dispute and establish their title over it. The arguments that they are neither necessary nor proper party is not liable to be accepted. If necessary and proper party is not impleaded then the Court is competent to implead them. If the petitioners does not want to contest the matter, they need not appear before the Court below. If the entries during consolidation is fraudulent, then proceeding will not be barred under Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. At this stage no findings can be recorded in this respect. Impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.