JUDGMENT : Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. 1. Heard Sri Somesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar Kumar Misra, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents. 2. As per office report dated 19.11.2018, service on respondent No.4 is though sufficient, however, no on has put in appearance on his behalf. 3. By these proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.07.2006, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Maharajganj, District Raebareli, whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act seeking correction of certain entries in the Khatauni, has been rejected. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 11.12.2007, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 15.07.2006, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, has been dismissed. 4. It appears that the petitioners moved an application dated 06.09.2005 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Maharajganj, Raebareli under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act seeking correction of certain entries in the Khatauni pertaining to the land comprised in Khata Nos. 72 and 236, situate in Village Devpuri, Pargana Bachhrawan, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Raebareli. In the said application it was pleaded inter alia by the petitioners that on an objection filed under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (herein after referred to as ‘Act’), the right of the petitioners had already been determined during the consolidation operations and though the said order was incorporated in C.H. Form 23, however, the revenue records have not been corrected in terms of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer for the reason that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was rescinded by issuing a notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. The Sub Divisional Officer has rejected the application moved by the petitioners seeking correction in the revenue records on the sole ground that since the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act has already been cancelled even before publication of the notification under Section 52 of the Act and further that the final consolidation records were not prepared as such, in these circumstances, the application under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act would not be maintainable and no relief to the petitioners in proceedings drawn under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act can be granted. 5. Learned revisional court has also agreed with the reasoning given by the Sub Divisional Officer while rejecting the application moved by the petitioners and has, thus, dismissed the revision petition. 6. This Court, vide its order dated 02.05.2019 required the petitioners to file supplementary affidavit annexing therewith copy of the order said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings drawn under Section 9A(2) of the Act and further to state as to whether the order dated 10.04.1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9A(2) of the Act was challenged before any other higher forum or not. 7. Pursuant to the said order the petitioners have filed an affidavit dated 03.05.2019 along with which certified copy of the order dated 10.04.1997 has been annexed which was passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings drawn under Section 9A(2) of the Act. The petitioners in paragraph-3 of the said supplementary affidavit have clearly stated that the order dated 10.04.1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer was not challenged either in appeal or revision before any other higher forum. Thus, so far as the validity of the order dated 10.04.1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer is concerned, the same, prima-facie, does not appear to be denied. 8. The sole question for consideration, thus, in this case is as to whether in a situation which has been presented by the facts of the present case, the orders passed by the consolidation authorities/courts can be given effect to in revenue records in proceedings drawn under Section 33/39 of the Act where the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act is published in respect of the village where the land is situated. 9. 9. The orders passed by the consolidation courts which have become final, are to be given effect to in the revenue records in terms of the provision contained in Section 6(2) of the Act. Section 6(1) of the said Act permits the State Government to cancel the notification made under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the whole or any part of the area to be specified therein. Thus, on a notification under Section 6(1) of the Act having been issued, the effect is that the consolidation operations in the village which might have commenced on issuance of notification under Section 4, would cease. However, there are certain consequences which have been provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 on issuance of notification under Section 6(1). According to Subsection (2) of Section 6, where a notification has been issued, such area shall cease to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation of notification under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. However, this consequence is subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation i.e. on or before the date of issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. From a bare perusal of the provision contained in Section 6(2), it is clear that in relation to correction of land records, if any order is passed by the consolidation courts and the same becomes final before issuance of notification under Section 6(1), the same needs to give effect by the authorities concerned in the revenue records. 10. The issue as to whether the final orders passed under Section 9A(2) of the Act are to be given effect to in terms of the provision contained in Section 6(2) of the Act even after issuance of notification under Section 6(1), is no more res integra as the same stands settled by catena of decisions of this Court, latest such decision being the judgment and order dated 23.03.2017, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5237(Cons.) of 2017, Rajendra Prasad Dixit & others Vs. State of U.P. and others. Accordingly there is no question of depriving any tenure holder or any person of any final order which might be passed by the consolidation courts before issuance of notice under Section 6(1) of the Act. 11. State of U.P. and others. Accordingly there is no question of depriving any tenure holder or any person of any final order which might be passed by the consolidation courts before issuance of notice under Section 6(1) of the Act. 11. The question in this case, however, is as to what can be the possible mode of giving effect to such orders passed by the consolidation courts before issuing notification under Section 6(1) of the said Act. 12. As a result of issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, the consolidation proceedings are not only ceased in the village or area where consolidation operations were going on but the process of preparation of final records in terms of the provision contained in Section 27 of the Act read with Rules 97 to 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 also gets halted. The question in such a situation is as to what statutory legal mode is available to the tenure holder in whose favour some order under Section 9A(2) of the Act, is passed before issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of the said Act. 13. As per scheme of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Rules framed there under, after preparation of final records under the consolidation operations in terms of the provision contained in U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the entire documents/records are submitted to the revenue authorities of the district and after publication of the notification under Section 52 of the said Act, the records are, thus, maintained and prepared in terms of the provisions contained in U.P. Land Revenue Act which now stand repealed and replaced by equivalent provisions contained in U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Since this matter pertains to the period when the U.P. Land Revenue Act was not repealed, the proceedings would still be permissible to be drawn under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act itself. 14. Section 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act casts a duty on the Collector and mandates him that he shall maintain the record of rights, and for that purpose he shall cause to be prepared and amended the register mentioned in Section 32 i.e. Khatauni, either annually or at such longer intervals as the State Government may prescribe. 14. Section 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act casts a duty on the Collector and mandates him that he shall maintain the record of rights, and for that purpose he shall cause to be prepared and amended the register mentioned in Section 32 i.e. Khatauni, either annually or at such longer intervals as the State Government may prescribe. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 again casts duty on the Collector that he shall cause to be recorded in Khatauni all successions and transfers or other changes that may take place in respect of any land and that he shall also correct all errors and omissions in the annual register. Proviso appended to Section 33, however, provides that power to record a change under clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 33 shall not be construed to include the power to decide a dispute involving any question of title. 15. Thus, it is abundantly clear that Section 33 of the Act is the provision which is mandatory in nature and requires, directs and mandates the Collector to maintain Khatauni or annual register in appropriate manner. 16. Section 33, apart from mandating the Collector to maintain records, also mandates the Collector that he will cause to be recorded changes that may take place in respect of the land and also to make correction which may be warranted, in the revenue records. Thus, the provision of Section 33 empowers the Collector sufficiently to make correction or incorporate the relevant changes in the record of rights i.e. in the Khatauni which may be warranted under law. Section 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is quoted herein under : “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 prescribe, 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 prescribe, 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 tire order of the Collector or as hereinafter provided, of tire 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 rights, assami or Government Lessee a Kisan Bahi (Pass book) which shall contain - (a) such extract from the annual register prepared under sub-section (1) relating to all holdings of which he is so recorded (either solely or jointly with others); (b) details of grants 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. (4A) The Kisan Bahi (Pass book) referred to in subsection (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. (4A) The Kisan Bahi (Pass book) referred to in subsection (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.)] (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 tire fees, if any, to be charged for any of the said purposes. (7) In this section, 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made 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”. 17. Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act permits an application for correction in the Khatauni or annual register to be moved to the Tehsildar. The correction may be sought by moving application under Section 39 is in relation to any error or omission in the annual register i.e. Khatauni. Sub-section (2) of Section 39 provides that on receipt of any application under Subsection (1) relating to any error or omission in the annual register coming to the knowledge of the Tehsildar or even otherwise, he shall conduct an enquiry as may be necessary and shall then refer the case to the Collector, who shall dispose it of accordingly. Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is quoted herein below : “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 the 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. (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 U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947”. 18. In view of the provision contained in Sections 33 and 39, it is clear that if any discrepancy or mistake or error comes to the notice of the revenue authorities, the same may be corrected by the Collector even in absence of any application or prayer there for for the reason that the provision contained in Section 33 of the Act primarily casts a duty on the Collector for maintaining the records. In my considered opinion, duty relating to maintenance of records fully encompasses in itself the duty and power conferred on the Collector to correct the Khatauni or annual register for the purpose of giving effect to the orders passed by the consolidation courts under Section 9A (2) of the Act, provided they are final and are covered by orders as described under Section 6(2) of the Act. 19. If the reason given by the Sub Divisional Officer while dismissing the application moved by the petitioners seeking correction in the Khatauni is upheld, the same would create a very anomalous situation, inasmuch as though orders passed by the consolidation courts would be protected by operation of Section 6(2) of the Act but they would not be given effect to in the Khatauni or annual register or records. This cannot be the intention of the Legislature and as such I am of the considered opinion that Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is to be read in a manner where the authority vested in the Collector under the said provision is to be construed to include and encompass the power and authority to make corrections in the annual register (Khatauni) for the purpose of giving effect to the orders passed by the consolidation courts under Section 9A(2) of the Act where notification under Section 6(1) is issued cancelling the notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act. 20. For the reasons disclosed herein above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 15.07.2006, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Maharajganj, District Raebareli, as is contaianed in Annexure No.2 and the order dated 11.12.2007, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, as is contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. 21. The matter is remitted back to the Collector/Additional Collector, Raebareli empowered to decide the matter under Section 33/39 of the Act, who shall call upon the reports by the Tehsil authorities and decide the matter afresh keeping in view the observations made herein above. He shall also call for reports to check the genuineness and validity of the order dated 10.04.1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer, under Section 9A(2) of the Act, which is being relied upon by the petitioners. The matter under this order shall be considered and decided by the Collector/Additional Collector concerned within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.