JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.-The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 5.7.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda in proceedings initiated under Section 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953'). 2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State-respondents have moved an application under Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953 for the purposes of correcting the records prepared during consolidation operations relating to old plot Nos. 19-a, 53-A and its equivalent new numbers bearing 14-Ka, 14-Kha, 14-Ga and 14-Gha. Plot Nos. 6-Ka, 6-kha and 6-Ga situate in Village Nadawar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda. 3. As per the application moved by the State-Authorities purporting to be under Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953, it was alleged that the aforesaid mentioned plots were recorded as pond land and the said land could neither be recorded in the name of any private individuals nor rights could be conferred on any individual in respect of such land. It was stated that during consolidation operations the said records did not reflect the correct entries and in the aforesaid circumstances, the name of the petitioners in respect of the said plots has been incorporated without any order of the Competent Authority, hence, such entries in favour of the petitioners is fraudulent and the same needs to be corrected. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they had filed their preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the said proceedings on 20th December, 2023 and the DDC without considering the preliminary objections was proceeding to decide the matter on merits. It is urged that merely because an order had been passed in contempt proceedings where the DDC was a party, hence, under threat of contempt the Deputy Director of Consolidation brushed aside the preliminary objections and in haste was keen to hear and decide the matter on merits. 5. It is urged that the preliminary objections dated 20th December, 2023 were rejected without considering the fact that the proceedings could not have been initiated at the behest of the State-Authorities after notification made under Section 52(1) of the Act of 1953. 5. It is urged that the preliminary objections dated 20th December, 2023 were rejected without considering the fact that the proceedings could not have been initiated at the behest of the State-Authorities after notification made under Section 52(1) of the Act of 1953. Another ground raised by the petitioners was that from the bare reading of Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953, it would indicate that the proceedings are in the nature of a reference which has to emanate either before the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer of Consolidation but cognizance cannot be taken directly by or before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 6. It is urged that the matter when initiated before the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, at that point of time, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the party and thereafter if it appears that a reference is required thereafter the Authority frames the reference and sends it to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. At this stage too, i.e. before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, when the reference comes to be heard, the affected party is again required to be given an opportunity of hearing before passing final orders on reference. 7. It is urged that in the instant case, neither any opportunity was granted before the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for the reason that the application for reference has been moved straightway before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and this procedure as adopted is against the statute. Moreover, once the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953 had been promulgated then a reference Court is not entitled to entertain such a reference, thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned dated 5.7.2024 is bad in the eyes of law. 8. Moreover, once the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953 had been promulgated then a reference Court is not entitled to entertain such a reference, thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned dated 5.7.2024 is bad in the eyes of law. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his aforesaid submissions has, relied upon the following decisions : (i) Ghafoor v. Additional Commissioner; 1979 R.D. 76; (iii) Hari Ram v. DDC, Azamgarh and others; 1989 RD 281 (DB); (iv) Nanhki v. DDC, Faizabad and others; 1995 LCD 1; (v) Ram Narain and others v. DDC, Barabanki and others; 2020 (147) RD 185 ; (vi) Sripal and others v. DDC, Raebareli; MANU/UP/2145/2017; (vii) Ali Khan v. Ram Prasad and another; (1981) RD 77 (DB); (viii) Raj Karan Singh v. Chief Revenue Officer; 2019 (144) RD 808; (ix) Smt. Malti Devi v. State of U.P. through Collector, District Ayodhya and others; 2021(8) ADJ 275 (DB); (x) Ram Bahadur v. DDC, Amethi; 2023 (159) RD 540 ; 9. On behalf of the State, the submissions were led by Sri Hemant Pandey, Advocate and Sri Upendra Singh and it was further supplemented by Sri Dev Prakash Mishra, Dr. Krishna Singh, Sri Yogesh Awasthi and Sri Rajesh Pandey, learned State Counsel who submitted that the bar of Section 52 of the Act of 1953 may not come in the way of the Consolidation Authorities to undertake any exercise such as correction of records or ensuring that the orders which have been passed by the Consolidation Authorities are duly implemented and reflected correctly in the records so prepared. 10. The learned Standing Counsel while opposing the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that there are several decisions of this Court which hold that proceedings under Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953 is a jurisdiction exercised by the DDC which is referable to a reference and in such circumstances there is no impact of the embargo as mentioned in Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953. 11. 11. He further submitted that any error which is found to be existing in the consolidation records or certain orders which are passed by the Consolidation Authorities, they are required to be appropriately incorporated by updating the records and in such circumstances the same can be corrected under the powers of the reference and in such cases, the bar of Section 52 (1) is not attracted. 12. It is also submitted that the nature of the consolidation proceedings are such that it is the duty of the Consolidation Authorities to prepare the consolidation records, which is checked at different levels and in case of any error regarding the entry, recording of any orders, implementing any order passed, all such activities can be done by the Consolidation Authorities and it cannot be said that upon the promulgation of the Notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953, the Consolidation Authorities lose their jurisdiction as a whole. 13. It is in this context, it was urged that the land in question is a pond land but it was erroneously and fraudulently recorded in the name of the petitioners. Once, the same came to the notice of the Consolidation Authorities, the records could be corrected and in that very context, the proceedings were initiated under Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953 and it cannot be said that the Consolidation Authorities are not authorized or the Authorities have no jurisdiction. 14. The State counsel urged that this aspect of the matter was considered by this Court in several cases and the learned State Counsel have relied upon the following decisions : (i) Dilawar Singh v. Gram Samaj and others; 1972 (RD) 453; (ii) Ram Bahadure v. DDC and others; 1974 (RD) 53 (DB); (iii) Kamta Prasad v. Board of Revenue and others; 1985 RD 411 ; (iv) Lalman v. DDC and others; W.P. No. 20018 of 1986; (v) Brij Bir Singh and another v. DDC, Meerut Camp and others; 1987 (RD) 66; (vi) Mukhtar v. DDC, Azamgarh and others; 1993 RD 457 (DB) (vii) Ram Rati v. DDC, Banda and others; 1999 (RJ) 926; (viii) Mithlesh Kumar v. DDC and others; 2013 (118) RD 468 ; (ix) Abdul Salam v. DDC. and others; Writ-B No. 61183 of 2015; (x) Sharda Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others; Writ-B No. 6490 of 2015; (xi) Ramveer Kashyap and others v. DDC and others; Writ-B No. 48277 of 2015; (xii) Abdul Sami and others v. DDC and others; 2015 (1) ADJ 214 ; (xiii) Neshat Afrooz and others v. Collector and others; Writ-B No. 37238/39762 of 2016; (xiv) Udai Narain Tiwari v. DDC and others; Writ-B No. 30585 of 2016; (xv) Shiv Shankar and another v. State of U.P. and others; 2017(11) ADJ 822 (xvi) Sampurna Nand Tiwari and others v. A.D.M. and others; Writ-B No. 3009 of 2019; (xvii) Ram Narain and others v. DDC and others; 2020 (147) RD 185 (xviii) Basdev and others v. State of U.P. and others; 2023(9) ADJ 208 ; 15. This Court after noticing the aforesaid decisions cited by the opposing sides find that there are divergent views of this Court. The Court also called upon the members of the Bar to address the Court and in pursuance thereof Dr. R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel, Sri V.B. Verma, Advocate also made their submissions. 16. Dr. R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel, attempting to reconcile the provisions and giving it a harmonious construction has urged that while the power to correct the records is apparent and bestowed on the Consolidation Authorities in terms of Section 42-A, however, they are confined only to clerical errors. However, in case if there is any error which is referrable to incorporating incorrect or wrong entries then such errors can be corrected only by taking recourse through provisions of law i.e. to say that only till such time, the consolidation proceedings are continuing and prior to the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953. However, in case if there is any error which is referrable to incorporating incorrect or wrong entries then such errors can be corrected only by taking recourse through provisions of law i.e. to say that only till such time, the consolidation proceedings are continuing and prior to the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953. It is urged that once the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953 has been made then subject to the provisions of Section 52 (2), the Consolidation Authorities lose their jurisdiction and then they are not permitted to make any corrections as in such a case Section 27 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 comes into play and it would be open for the Consolidation Authorities to refer the matter to the Revenue Authorities who in terms of the then existing provisions as contained in the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1908 would proceed with the matter and now with the promulgation of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it can proceed under the corresponding provisions of the Code of 2006. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions : (i) Raja Ram and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow and others; 1982 RD 387 ; and (ii) Smt. Jagrani @ Ram Jiyai v. DDC, Shrawasti and others; 2024 (164) RD 238; 17. Sri V.B. Verma, learned counsel also made submissions to the aforesaid effect that if any order is passed or it requires to be incorporated or amended or appropriately reflected in the records then the same can be done in terms of Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953 but once the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953 is made then the only manner in which the records can be corrected is by resorting to Rule 109 as framed under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. 18. Having considered the aforesaid submissions as well as the decisions cited by the respective parties, an issue of seminal importance arises for consideration. 19. From perusal of the decisions cited by the learned counsel from the two sides indicate that there is a difference in the views expressed in the several decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court. 18. Having considered the aforesaid submissions as well as the decisions cited by the respective parties, an issue of seminal importance arises for consideration. 19. From perusal of the decisions cited by the learned counsel from the two sides indicate that there is a difference in the views expressed in the several decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court. This Court further finds that there is a conflict in certain Division Bench decisions of this Court as well which also shall be considered. 20. However, before proceeding further, it will be relevant to notice certain statutory provisions of the Act of 1953 : ''4. Declaration and notification regarding consolidation.- (1) (a) The State Government may, where it is of opinion that a district or part thereof may be brought under consolidation operations, make a declaration to that effect in the Gazette, whereupon it shall become lawful for any officer or authority who may be empowered in this behalf by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation -- (i) to enter upon and survey, in connection with rectangulation or otherwise, and to take levels of any land in such area; (ii) to fix pillars in connection with rectangulation, and; (iii) to do all acts necessary to ascertain the suitability of the area for consolidation operations. (b) The District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause public notice of the declaration issued under clause (a) to be given at convenient places in the said district or part thereof. (2)(a) When the State Government decides to start consolidation operations, either in an area covered by a declaration issued under sub-section (1) or in any other area, it may issue a notification to this effect.] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1963.] (b) [Every such notification shall be published in the Gazette and in a daily newspaper having circulation in the said area and shall also be published in each unit in the said area in such manner as may be considered appropriate.] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 30 of 1991 (w.e.f. 19.2.1991).] 9. Issue of extracts from records and statements and publication of records mentioned in Sections 8 and 8-A and the issue of notices for inviting objections.- (1) Upon the preparation of the records and the statements mentioned in Sections 8and 8-A, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall -] (a) correct the clerical mistakes, if any, and send, or cause to be sent, to the tenure-holders concerned and other persons interested, notices containing relevant extracts from the current annual register and such other records as may be prescribed showing - (i) their rights in and liabilities in relation to the land; (ii) mistakes, [undisputed cases of succession] [Inserted by U.P. Act No. 30 of 1991 (w.e.f 19.2.1991).]and disputes discovered under Section 8 in respect thereof; (iii) specific shares of individual tenure-holders in joint holdings for the purpose of effecting partitions, where necessary, to ensure proper consolidation; (iv) valuation of the plots; and (v) valuation of trees, wells and other improvements for calculating compensation therefor and its apportionment amongst owners, if there be more owners than one; (b) publish in the unit the current khasra and the current annual register, the khasra chakbandi, the Statement of Principles prepared under Section 8-A, and any other records that may be prescribed to show, inter alia, the particulars referred to in clause (a). (2) Any person to whom a notice under sub-section (1) has been sent, or any other person interested may, within 21 days of the receipt of notice, or of the publication under sub-section (1), as the case may be, file, before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, objections in respect thereof disputing the correctness or nature of the entries in the records or in the extracts furnished therefrom, or in the Statement of Principles, or the need for partition.] 11. Appeals.-(1) Any party to the proceedings under Section 9-A, aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer under that section, may, within 21 days of the date of the order, file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who shall after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, give his decision thereon which, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final and not be questioned in any Court of law. (2) The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, hearing an appeal under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction, anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force notwithstanding.] 27. New revenue records.-(1) As soon as may be, after the final Consolidation Scheme has come into force, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause to be prepared for each village, a new map, field-book and record of rights in respect of the consolidation area, on the basis of the entries in the map, as corrected under Section 7, the Khasra chakbandi, the annual register prepared under Section 10 and the allotment orders as finally made and issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall, subject to such modifications and alterations as may be prescribed, be followed in the preparation of the said map and records.] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1963.] [(2) All entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. (3)After the issue of notification under Section 52, the Collector shall, instead of the map, field-book and record-of-rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, field-book and record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1)] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 12 of 1965 and shall be deemed always to have been substituted.] [and the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, relating to the maintenance and correction of such map, field-book and record-of-rights shall mutatis mutandis apply] 42-A Correction of clerical or arithmetical erros.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, is satisfied that a clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record exists in any document prepared under any provisions of this Act, he shall, either on his own motion, or on the application of any person interested, correct the same. 48. 48. Revision and reference.-(1) 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] [other than an interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1). [Explanation.-] [(1)] [For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. Explanation (2)-For the purposes of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding. [Explanation (3).-The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence.] 52. [Explanation (3).-The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence.] 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 271, 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 record 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 operation 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 Zamindari 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.] [Rule- 109 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954.-(1) Orders passed in cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 52 shall be given effect to by the consolidation authorities, authorised in this behalf under sub-section (2) of Section 42. In case there be no such authority the Assistant Collector, incharge of the sub-division, the Tahsildar, the Naib-Tahsildar, the Supervisor kanungo, and the Lekhpal of the area to which the case relates shall, respectively, perform the functions and discharge the duties of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officer, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Consolidator and the Consolidation Lekhpal respectively for the purpose of giving effect to the orders aforesaid. (2) If for the purpose of giving effect to any order referred to in sub-rule (1) it becomes necessary to reallocate affected chaks, necessary orders may be passed by the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. (3) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, may, within 15 days of the order passed under sub-rule (2), file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, or the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division, as the case may be, who shall decide the appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, which shall be final. (4) In case delivery of possession becomes necessary as a result of orders passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3), as the case may be, the provisions of Rules 55 and 56 shall, mutatis mutandis, be followed.]'' 21. Having taken note of the aforesaid statutory provisions, now the stage is set to consider the various decisions cited by the parties. 22. This Court deems appropriate to first notice the decisions which hold that after the notification issued under Section 52(1) of the Act of 1953, the Consolidation Authorities lose their jurisdiction to adjudicate. (i) In the case of the Ghafoor v. Additional Commissioner; 1979 (RD) 76 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court has held as under : 1. After publication of the notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the Petitioner moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer praying for correction of map prepared by the consolidation authorities on the ground that there was some discrepancy in the map as well as in C.H. Form 45. The application filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that because Consolidation operations were over in the village, as such the map cannot be on. The application filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that because Consolidation operations were over in the village, as such the map cannot be on. The corrected under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act or under any other section. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division and the Additional Commissioner relying on Ganga Glass Works (Private) Ltd., Balawali v. State of U.P., 1973 AWR 620 , held that the map prepared by the consolidation authorities was final and the revenue authorities were incompetent to make any correction. In that case the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the provisions of Sections 42A and 27(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act held that Section 42A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act does enable the authorities to correct the size and shape of plots in the map prepared under Section 27(1) by referring to the record of rights. and Section 27(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is only for the purpose of specifying the procedure for preparation of the map and record. As such the Consolidation authorities alone were competent to make any alteration in the map prepared by the consolidation authorities. From the facts of the said case it is not clear when the cause of action arose and whether the village was still under consolidation and whether notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act had been published. There is yet another Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and a perusal of Section 27(2) shows that the entries which were made earlier were final and conclusive and a presumption of correctness was attached to them meaning thereby that the said presumption could be rebutted. Section 27(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides that after the issue of notification under Section 52, the Collector shall, instead of the map, field-book and record-of-rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, field-book and record-of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 relating to the maintenance and correction of such map, field-book and record of rights shall mutatis mutandis apply. 2. 2. Thus after consolidation operations are over and the notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is published shed it is the Collector who is to maintain the map, field-book etc., and such a map and field-book can be corrected under the Land Revenue Act and under such circumstances the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act does not go to the extent of rendering the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act nugatory, so far as correction of map prepared during consolidation operations is concerned. 3. Our attention has been drawn to another case Mohammad Raza v. Board of Revenue, 1973 AWR 621 in which it was held that a map prepared by the consolidation authorities is not necessarily final and conclusive and a map incorrectly drawn up cannot be treated as final and conclusive and can be corrected under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act. 4. Looking to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Land Revenue Act, we are in agreement with the view expressed in Mohammad Raza v. Board of Revenue (supra) and we hold that if a map is subsequently found incorrect and it is not in conformity with the document prepared by the consolidation authorities, the same can in suitable cases be e corrected subsequent under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of to the publication of the notification Holdings Act by the Collector in exercise of power under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act. Thus we are of the view that law laid down in Ganga Glass Works (Private) Ltd., Balawali v. State of U.P. (supra) is not a good law. 5. Thus the powers of the Collector under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correcting the map in suitable cases are intact notwithstanding the map has been prepared by the consolidation authorities who have adjudicated the rights and title of the parties. In case there is any discrepancy in the map and final document has been prepared by the consolidation authorities, the same can be corrected in proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act provided the right, interest and title of the party which have been finally adjudicated or have become final are not involved. 6. In case there is any discrepancy in the map and final document has been prepared by the consolidation authorities, the same can be corrected in proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act provided the right, interest and title of the party which have been finally adjudicated or have become final are not involved. 6. In the present case after notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was published, an application was moved by the Petitioner for correction of the map and the Petitioner tendered evidence that the map was not in conformity with the entries which were made in C.H. Form 45. It was obligatory on the authorities to correct the map in case they were satisfied that there was some discrepancy between the map and the entries in C.H. Form 45 and it is on a mistaken view of law that they have refused to grant this relief to the Petitioner.'' (ii) In Raja Ram and others v. DDC, Lucknow; 1982 (RD) 387 (DB), the Court has held as under : ''8. In accordance with R. 109A read with Section 52 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the contesting opposite parties could not approach the consolidation authorities for getting requisite entry as no case was pending on the date of denotification under Section 52 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The proceeding giving rise to the present writ petition is wholly without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. The ruling reported in 1981 Rev Dec 307: (1981 UPLT NOC 207), is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case no question of applicability of R. 109A was involved, hence that case does not throw any light upon the question under my consideration in the present writ petition. The revisional Court through the impugned judgment dated 29-10-1974 has tried to give effect to the order dated 23-7-1965. I think it has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 29-10-1974. without considering the question whether the contesting opposite parties could move any application under R. 109A under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the present case. I think it has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 29-10-1974. without considering the question whether the contesting opposite parties could move any application under R. 109A under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the present case. In my opinion the contesting opposite parties could not invoke the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities under R. 109A under the Act after denotification under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the facts and circumstances involved in the present.'' (iii) In Hari Ram v. DDC, Azamgarh and others; 1989 (RD) 281 (DB), the Division Bench of this Court has held as under : ''2. We find that on 29th October, 1987 an objection was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The position of law is well-settled. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 48 (3) of the Act if a de notification has already taken place under Section 52 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, will first record a finding as to whether a Notification under Section of the Act had, in fact, been issued on 13th February 1982. If he finds that such a notification exists and if he also finds that the land which is the subject-matter of dispute is covered by the said Notification, he shall desist from exercising any power under Section 48 (3) of the Act. With his direction the petition is disposed of finally.'' � (iv) In Nanhki v. DDC, Pratapgarh and others; 1995 (13) LCD 1, the Division Bench of this Court has held as under : ''3. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged only or the ground of diction. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, after the village where the land in dispute is situate was de notified under Section 52 (1) of the Act vide notification dated 8th March, 1979, published in the gazette on 5th May, 1979, the application for correction of reconds and of the age map village on any ground whatsoever cannot be entertained by the Consolidation Authorities nor they are left with the power to pass orders on the same and, therefore, impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and llable to be quashed by the writ of certiorari. 4. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court. The fest jatlipment is of a Division Bench of this Court in Hari Ram v. DDC, Azamgarh and others, 1989 RD 281 . This Court was approached by means of a writ petition for issue of the welt of prohibition by one Hari Ram who happened to be opposite party in a case which was pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 (3) of the Act. In the writ position it was alleged by him that although consolidation proceedings in the village where the land was situate has come to an end by issue of Notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act. Deputy Director of Consolidation wrongly proceeded with the reference under Section 48 (3) of The Act. It was argued on his behalf that if a notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act has been issued, the village goes out of the consolidation and the Consolidation Authorities cease to have jusdiction to either entertain any application or pass orders for correction of papers or whatever purpose. The Division Bench of this Court while finally disposing of this writ petition at the admission stage passed the order directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh to fint record a finding as to whether Notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act had been ed in respect of tire land in dispute and to determine as to whether the village where land in dispute is situate, has been denotified. The direction further was that in case it was found that the land has ceased to be the subject-matter of the consolidation proceedings, the Deputy Deertar of Consolidation shall not proceed with the application and shall not pass any order Dereon in as much as in such situation he lacks jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Application. 5. The second judgment on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the pititioner, is a single Bench judgment in the case of Raja Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow and others, 1982 RD 387 . 5. The second judgment on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the pititioner, is a single Bench judgment in the case of Raja Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow and others, 1982 RD 387 . In this case, an application for Correction of papers was made under Section 42-A of the Act for the purposes of carrying out of Consolidation an We arters passed by the Consolidation Authorities and the Deputy Director of the basis of that application exercising powers under Section 48 of the Act passed orders for The correction of of pap papers. The Court held that when the village has been de-notified under Sect 12 (1) of the Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation loses jurisdiction to entertain the vation and pess orders under Section 42-A of the Act either in the garts of making mation or fur execution of the orders earlier passed by the Consolidation Authorities. -------******--------*******--------******------- 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in that case was that since the village had been denotified, the application for correction of papers was not maintainable. This contention of the petitioners made in that case was rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that for purpose of carrying out the orders earlier passed by Consolidation Authorities application was maintainable and the Consolidation. Authorities were competent to pass orders therean. This view of the learned Single Judge is in direct conflict with the view taken by another learned Single Judge in the case of Raja Ram (supra) as well as with the view taken by Division Bench in the case of Hari Ram (supra). Since the view taken by the Single Judge in the case of Raja Ram is fully supported and endorsed by the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Han Ram (supra), in my opinion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Brij Bir Singh cannot prevail and it cannot be said to be a correct view. In the normal course where the Court is faced with two conflicting views taken by coordinate benches, the case is to be referred to a larger bench. In the normal course where the Court is faced with two conflicting views taken by coordinate benches, the case is to be referred to a larger bench. In this case, this course is not required to be adopted as the view taken by this Court in the case of Raja Ram (supra) has fully been endorsed by the Division Bench of this Court which will be deemed to have overruled the view taken by the karned single Judge in the case of Brij Bir Singh (supra). 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents has further cited another case in Kamta Prasad v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and others, 1986 RD 206. This too is a case of correction of papers for carrying out orders passed by Consolidation Authorities. Here, the the learned Single Judge held that for carrying out the orders of the Consolidation Authorities after denotification of the village under Section 52 (1) of the Act, Revenue Authorities will have Jurisdiction to make necessary corrections. This judgment also supports the view taken in case of Raja Ram and the view taken by the Division Bench in Hon Ram's case. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Consolidation Authorities will have no power to entertain any application for is de-notified by issue of Notification under Section 52 (1) correction of papers after the village of the Act as thereafter land is no more subject-matter of consolidation proceedings.'' (v) In Ram Narain and others v. DDC, Barabanki; 2020 (147) RD 185 , the Court has held as under : ''13. This Court has perused the judgment and order dated 7.8.2015 passed in the case of Pateshwan Dutt Pandey (supra). In the said case, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered the scope of application under Section 42-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act after notification under Section 52 of the Act had already been issued. This Court relied upon the Division Bench judgement rendered in Gafoor v. Additional Commissioner, Lucknow and others, 1979 RD 76 (DB). Hari Ram v. D.D.C. Azamgarh; 1989 RD 281 , Ghamari v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others; 2003 94 RD 90 and Sant Lal and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others; 2015 (1) JCLR 310 , where this Court had considered the limitation of jurisdiction of consolidation authorities after Section 52 notification was issued closing the consolidation operations. 14. 14. The Co-ordinate Bench pointed out the exceptions that have been carved out by the judicial precedents for entertaining the application under Section 42-A of the Act. There were only two exceptions carved out. Firstly, the cases which are pending under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the time of notification and were decided after de-notification, and secondly, the cases which were pending before the consolidation authorities at the time of de-notification and judgments were rendered thereafter. In all other cases, the remedy for the Tenure holder is to approach the Collector, where the records had been sent by the Consolidation Authorities after Section 52 notification is issued for correction of map to be carried out in conformity with the confirmed map prepared by the consolidation authorities and as per area of plot/chak mentioned in C.H. Form 41 and C.H. Form 45. 15. This Court has also considered the judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Bench in Pooran Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut and others; 2008 (105) RD 469 and Dr. Sukhbeer Singh v. Commissioner, Meerut and others, 2014 (32) LCD 1912 , and held that the aforecited two judgments were given in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases as mentioned in the said judgments, and cannot help in advancement of petitioner's case that even after Section 52 notification has been issued, application under Section 42-A of the Act can be entertained.'' (vi) In Smt. Malti Devi v. State of U.P. and others; 2021(8) ADJ 275 (DB), the Court has held as under : ''7. One of the judgments cited before this Court, passed in Writ Petition No. 763 (Cons.) of 2005: Sripal and two others v. D.D.C. Raebareli and two others, wherein this Court after considering all the law settled by earlier Benches of this Court as well as the Board of Revenue, has held that after notification under Section 52 only those consolidation operations which are referable under sub-section 2 of Section 52 can be allowed to be continued. The application moved by the petitioner under Section 42(A) was not maintainable even though no limitation was prescribed for moving such correction application.'' (vii) In Sri Pal and others v. DDC, Raebareli and others; MANU/UP/2145/2017, the Court has held as under : ''18. The application moved by the petitioner under Section 42(A) was not maintainable even though no limitation was prescribed for moving such correction application.'' (vii) In Sri Pal and others v. DDC, Raebareli and others; MANU/UP/2145/2017, the Court has held as under : ''18. On a conjoint reading of Section 52 and 27(3) it is evident that during consolidation 1 operations and prior to its ceasing in terms of Section 52, it is the Consolidation Authorities who are empowered to correct the records. The opening line of sub-section (3) of Section 27 makes is amply clear that after closure of Consolidation Operations on issuance of Notification under Section 52 it is the Collector who shall maintain the map, field-book and record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act 1953 i.e. during consolidation operations, and the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 relating to the maintenance and correction of such map, field-book and record of rights shall mutatis-mutandis apply in respect thereof. -------******--------*******--------******------- 33. In view of the above discussion, even though no limitation is prescribed for correction under Section 42-A, the Revisional Court cannot be faulted for having arrived at the conclusion, inter alia, that the proceedings under Section 42-A after de-notification under Section 52 were not maintainable, and the remedy, if any, was under Section 28 or 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act 1901, however, in this regard the Court would like to add a caveat, as Maiku had Initiated a regular suit under Section 229-B, therefore, it would have to be seen as to what was the decision rendered therein and its effect on the maintainability of subsequent proceedings under Section 28 or 33/39. Subject to this condition, if the contention of the petitioner is correct i.e. without there being any order of any Consolidation Authority in favour of Jalpa or Ram Avtar for recording of their names in respect of Basic Year Khata No. 26, an entry was made in their favour in respect of the sald Khata in C.H. Form 11 which continued in C.H. Form 23, 41 and 45 then it was certainly a fundamental error which would go to the root of the matter as has also been observed by the Revisional Court and in such a situation the records would be liable to correction so as to ensure substantial justice, as, in such a factual scenario the entry would be without any basis i.e. fake entry, and in such a situation injustice cannot be allowed to be perpetrated. In such a case remedy would be under Section 33/39 of the Act 1901 before the Collector who also happens to be the District Deputy Director, Consolidation in view of the above discussion and the deficiency in the material before it, especially the absence of order dated 19.12.1970 and the judgment in the suit under Section 229-B as also its plaint, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unable to consider the pleas raised herein or Interfere with the order of the revisional Court, which it finds to be just and proper, subject of course to the above observations, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.'' (viii) In Raj Karan Singh v. Chief Revenue Officer; MANU/UP/3069/2019, the Court has held as under : ''4. Whatever be the merits of the controversy involved, one feature is striking l.e. once notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953 had been published on 10.4.1982 then there was no way that any reference could have been prepared under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953. Whatever be the merits of the controversy involved, one feature is striking l.e. once notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953 had been published on 10.4.1982 then there was no way that any reference could have been prepared under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953. It is settled legal position that any correction thereafter could either be under Rule 109 l.e. in the event the claimant is able to satisfy that there was a valid order passed under any provision of the Act, 1953 during consolidation operations which was not given effect in the records prepared during consolidation or thereafter, or under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (corresponding provision of Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) by virtue of Section 27 of the Act, 1953 under which after closure of consolidation operations the records are remitted to the Collector who is the custodian obliged to maintain and correct the same.'' (ix) In Smt. Jagrani @ Ram Jiyayi v. DDC, Shrawasti and others; 2024 (164) RD 238, this Court has held as under : 20. It is now to well-settled to be disputed that in terms of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the consolidation operations commenced with the notification issued under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953........ 21. Similarly, Section 52 of the Act of 1953 clearly provides that upon the denotification of the village under Section 52 of the Consolidation operation come to end and thereafter no Consolidation Authorities have been conferred with the powers to entertain or deal with the matter unless as provided in Section 52 itself ...... 22. In light of the aforesaid and considering the facts which are before this Court which are apparently not disputed, are that, villages in question were denotified on 31.3.2008, accordingly no Consolidation Authorities could have entertained any application under the Act after the date of the denotification. 23. Another fact which is not disputed is that Raja Ram made his application under Section 12 of the Act on 14.7.2015 as evident from Annexure 2, hence the said application having been moved after the date of denotification was per se not maintainable and the Consolidation Officer was denuded of all jurisdictions to have passed any order thereon. Thus, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 8.11.2016 was per se inherently without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Thus, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 8.11.2016 was per se inherently without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Though the said order was assailed by Smt. Jagrani in an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation who allowed the appeal on 28.9.2017 but the fact remains that once the order of the Consolidation Officer after denotification were void ab initio for the same reason, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was also denuded of jurisdiction to have passed the order. It was actually a fit case for Smt. Jagrani to have assailed the order of Consolidation Officer straight away by filing writ petition before this Court but nevertheless the said course was not adopted. -------******--------*******--------******------- 30. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear view that the proceedings after denotification as initiated by Raja Ram were wholly without jurisdiction and all the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 8.11.2016, the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 28.9.2017 and the order impugned dated 9.5.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are all without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 31. Attempt of Shyam Lal to seek a substitution on the basis of Will in proceedings under Article 226 where the impugned orders are per se without jurisdiction, hence this Court does not permit Sham Lal to be impleaded. For the aforesaid reason this Court finds that the entire proceedings initiated at the behest of Raja Ram by filing an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act,1953 to be without jurisdiction and are quashed and all impugned orders i.e. 8.11.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer, 28.9.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 9.5.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall also stand quashed. The parties shall be at liberty of getting their rights adjudicated before the competent revenue Court who shall consider and decide the title to the estate of Bachowa on the basis of contested plea by the respective parties and for the said purpose all plea are left open for the parties to be raised and decided by the Revenue Courts. 23. 23. Now, lets consider decisions of this Court wherein it has been held that the Consolidation Authorities do not lose jurisdiction simplicitor but retain powers to correct the records : (i) In the case of Ram Bahadur v. DDC and others; 1974 RD 53 (DB), the Division Bench of this Court has held as under : ''2. The issuance of the Notification does not, however affect the orders passed by the High Court the Supreme Court under the provisions of the Constitution of India or in cases or proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issue of notification under sub-section (1) and orders passed will have to be given effect to notwithstanding anything contained in the Notification. In Dilawar Singh's case, 1972 All WR (HC) 557 : AIR 1973 Allahabad 411, the Division Bench observed that the term ''proceedings'' in Section 52 (2) has been used in the comprehensive sense of proceedings commencing from the one which is initiated before the Consolidation Officer and including that taken in the appeal Court. It was held that an appeal does not initiate a fresh proceeding. On the institution of the appeal the proceedings, which had become dormant on the decision of the trial Court revive and remain pending, the only difference being that they are now pending in a different Court, namely, the Court of appeal. It was also held that the notification under Section 52 (1) does not have the effect of destroying vested rights of the litigants. For instance, if a litigant has a right of appeal against a particular order he can exercise it notwithstanding the publication of the notification under Section 52 (1) and the moment an appeal is filed the effect in law is that the original proceedings stand revived. -------******------*****------*****---- 4. We have seen the decision of the learned Single Judge in Mohd. Saddiq v. Deputy Director, (1967 All WR (HC) 228). In that decision no reasons have been given for the view that an application for setting aside the ex parte decree does not fall within the purview of Section 52 (2) as a proceeding which involves or affects a revival of the original proceedings and from that point of view making the original proceeding pending within the meaning of Section 52 (2). In our opinion, this decision does not lay down the law correctly.'' (ii) In Brij Bir Singh and another v. DDC, Meerut Camp of Muzaffarnagar and others; 1987 RD 66 , the Court has held as under : ''5. ........ The first point which requires determination is as to, whether the effect of the order dated 8-7-64 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which became final between the parties in all respects during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, before the issuance of notification under Section 52(1) of the Act, can be sought to be given effect to by the successful party after the notification under Section 52(1) has been issued. The reply to this argument is not too far to seek. The relevant provisions of the Act coupled with the intetion of the legislature in enacting the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has to be ascertained. Under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, unlike the provisions of U.P.Z.A and LR Act, when any order has been passed in favour of any party, its effect has to be given in the relevant revenue papers and in the relevant C.H. Forms by the consolidation authorities themselves. No application to give effect to that order is-required-In other words, there is no provision Under the Act for the execution of any order under the Act, unlike in a suit filed under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under the Specific Relief Act or under Section 202 or 203 of U.P.Z.A and L.R.Act. -------*****-----*****-----*****-----*****----- 12. it is, thus, clear that the intention of the Legislature was that if an order has to be passed by a particular consolidation authority, it has to be given effect to in revenue papers and if the same has not been given effect to by either side, in that event the successful party should not suffer. There is a maxim 'Actus Curae Neminem Gravabit', which means that an act of the Court shall prejudice no man. It is, thus, clear that once an order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in favour of the contesting Respondents, which became final and if the consolidation authorities failed to carry out that order or to give effect in the revenue papers, it is not for the contesting Respondents to suffer. It is, thus, clear that once an order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in favour of the contesting Respondents, which became final and if the consolidation authorities failed to carry out that order or to give effect in the revenue papers, it is not for the contesting Respondents to suffer. Further that order could have been given effect to during the consolidation operations by making an application for correction of papers and even after the close of the consolidation operation. The application for correction of papers, even if moved by the contesting Respondents, for which there was no limitation provided, it could not be said that application became time barred. In case the Petitioners have any grievance they could have challenged the order dated 8-7-64. But they did not do so. Now there no justification on their part to object to the application for correction of papers moved on behalf of the successful party. In case there would have been any limitation provided for application for correction of papers, the Petitioners would have been justified in raising the objection. But as there was no limitation provided for that application, it can be moved either during the consolidation operations or after the close of consolidation operation. Even during the consolidation operation the Legislature did not require the successful party to make an application for execution for seeking effect to a particular order. It was for the consolidation authorities to carry out the effect of the order passed in favonr of a party. 13. The scope for reference has not been defined under Section 48(3). It has been left to the discretion of the Court. There is no denying the fact that where grounds have not been stated in the text the task of a Court becomes heavier. In this connection it is better to quote an subservation in C.K. Allen's Law. In the Making, (6th Edn.) at page 1292 as follows: ''The Judge himself addresses his task in much the same way as a counsel. His decision is given in the form of a structure of logic, in which he may use any material which he considers ad rem. Even purely unofficial practice may be prayed in aid as precedent to interpret documents (or statute). If the matter is governed by the clear and unambiguous prevision of a statute, his task is simplified. His decision is given in the form of a structure of logic, in which he may use any material which he considers ad rem. Even purely unofficial practice may be prayed in aid as precedent to interpret documents (or statute). If the matter is governed by the clear and unambiguous prevision of a statute, his task is simplified. In a great many cases, no statute is applicable and even if it is applicable it is frequently the reverse of clear and unambiguous. The Judge must then proceed as Bacon laid down long ago either by parity of reasoning or by use of examples or by rules of natural reason and discretion.'' 14. There is no limitation provided for making application for a reference nor there is any condition laid down under Section 48(3) beyond which the reference cannot be preferred by any subordinate consolidation authorities. The only requirement of Section 48(3) of the Act was that after hearing the parties concerned a reference can be made to the Deputy Director of Consolidation regarding any order under Section 48(1) ie. to ascertain the correctness, legality or propriety of an order. In the t instant case I don't think there could be any better case for ''propriety of an order'' Where an order between the parties has become final and the same was not given effect to in the revenue papers, then the intention of the Legislature Legis was that such order passed in favour of any party to be given effect to by the consolidation authorities and has there was no necessity for making any appl application for execution of that order. Under these orcumstances, even if after the close of consolidation operation an application for correction of papers was moved seeking effect of the order which became final, the prayer in that application could be granted only by making a reference, particularly when the consolidation authorities were actually functioning in the area as provided under Rule 109-A. In case the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not functioning in the area or in the District, his power would then be exercised by the Assistant Collector or some other appropriate revenue authority. But as a in the instant case the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) directed the Consolidation Officer to submit a reference purporting to be a reference under Section 48(3) of the Act, I don't find that there Was any mistake or error in that order The Deputy Director of Consolidation was justified in rejecting the revision against that order preferred by the present Petitioners 15. As regards the case of Raja Ram v. D.D.C., 1982 All LJ 871 (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, suffice it to say that in that case a suit for partition was pending between the parties at the time of application under Section 109-A was filed and in that orcumstances this Court took the view that the parties can press their claim in the partition suit and Section 49 of the Act would not apply. In the instant case the application for correction of papers was correctly moved by the contesting Respondents seeking effect of the order dated 8-7-1964 which had become final and it was the duty of consolidation authorities to have given effect to that order when the e consolidation operation was not closed in the area by issuing a notification under Section 52(1) of the Act. But as the application was made by the contesting Respondents, I am of the view that the ends of justice requires that that application should be allowed by making a reference under Section 48(3) of the Act. Further the aforesaid case of Raja Ram v. D.D.C. (supra), appears to be based on particular facts of that case and with profound regards have to say that that case law is not the whole law, but is governed by the facts of a particular case. In this connection I am reminded of an observation made by Lord Macmillan, who was a distinguished Judge of his time, in Berch v. Brown, (1931) A.C. page 631, to the effect that ''precedent should be stepping stones and not halting places''. (iii) In Mukhtar v. DDC, Azamgarh and others; 1993 RD 457 (DB), the Court has held as under: ''11. From the entire scheme of the Act and the Rules framed there-under it thus becomes clear that the duty for revising the revenue records is cast on the Consolidation Authorities and it is for the Consolidation Authorities to implement the orders which are passed under the Act. From the entire scheme of the Act and the Rules framed there-under it thus becomes clear that the duty for revising the revenue records is cast on the Consolidation Authorities and it is for the Consolidation Authorities to implement the orders which are passed under the Act. The Scheme of the Act is not like the scheme which has been provided under the Code of Civil Procedure in the sense that after obtaining a judgment and decree in his favour a party has to apply for execution within a certain period of limitation prescribed to get the fruits of the decree. Here under the Act the duty is enjoined on the Consolidation Authorities themselves to implement the orders which have been passed under the Act and duty is cast on the person in whose favour the decision has been given to make an application to the authorities under the Act for implementation of that order within any prescribed period of limitation. In our opinion, till the order passed by the Consolidation authorities on 13-5-1974 was not finally implemented by the Consolidation Authorities as contemplated under the Rules, the proceedings under the Act would be deemed to be pending. The order which has been passed in favour of the contesting respondents was to be incorporated by the Consolidation Authorities in the revenue records. The consolidation Authorities having not done so, the proceedings in respect thereof cannot be said to have been concluded before de-notification of the village. The proceedings for correcting the revenue records in pursuance of the order dated 13-5-1974 would necessarily be taken to be pending on the date of the notification issued under Section 52(1) of the Act. The Consolidation Authorities were thus bound to implement the directions contained in the final order dated 13-5-1974 under the Act even though a notification under Section 52(1) of the Act had taken place. In our opinion, the view by learned Single Judge in the case of Raja Ram (supra) does not lay down the correct law.'' (iv) In Ram Pati v. DDC, Banda and others; 1999 RJ 926, the Court has held as under : ''5. In our opinion, the view by learned Single Judge in the case of Raja Ram (supra) does not lay down the correct law.'' (iv) In Ram Pati v. DDC, Banda and others; 1999 RJ 926, the Court has held as under : ''5. From the entire scheme of the Act and the Rules framed there-under it thus becomes clear that the duty for revising the revenue records is cast on the Consolidation Authorities and it is for the Consolidation Authorities to implement the orders which are passed under the Act. The Scheme of the Act is not like the scheme which has been provided under the Code of Civil Procedure in the sense that after obtaining a judgment and decree in his favour a party has to apply for execution within a certain period of limitation prescribed to get the fruits of the decree. Here under the Act the duty is enjoined on the Consolidation Authorities themselves to implement the orders which have been passed under the Act and duty is cast on the person in whose favour the decision has been given to make an application to the authorities under the Act for implementation of that order within any prescribed period of limitation. In our opinion, till the order passed by the Consolidation authorities on 13-5-1974 was not finally implemented by the Consolidation Authorities as contemplated under the Rules, the proceedings under the Act would be deemed to be pending. The order which has been passed in favour of the contesting respondents was to be incorporated by the Consolidation Authorities in the revenue records. The consolidation Authorities having not done so, the proceedings in respect thereof cannot be said to have been concluded before de-notification of the village. The proceedings for correcting the revenue records in pursuance of the order dated 13-5-1974 would necessarily be taken to be pending on the date of the notification issued under Section 52(1) of the Act. The Consolidation Authorities were thus bound to implement the directions contained in the final order dated 13-5-1974 under the Act even though a notification under Section 52(1) of the Act had taken place. In our opinion, the view by learned Single Judge in the case of Raja Ram (supra) does not lay down the correct law.'' (v) In Abdul Sami and others v. DDC and others; 2015(1) ADJ 214 , the Court has held as under: ''8. In our opinion, the view by learned Single Judge in the case of Raja Ram (supra) does not lay down the correct law.'' (v) In Abdul Sami and others v. DDC and others; 2015(1) ADJ 214 , the Court has held as under: ''8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, especially the decision cited on behalf of respondents, which holds as follows : ''From the entire scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder it thus becomes clear that the duty for revising the revue records is cast on the Consolidation Authorities and it is for the Consolidation Authorities to implement the orders which are passed under the Act. The Scheme of the Act is not like the scheme which has been provided under the Code of Civil procedure in the sense that after obtaining a judgment and decree in his favour a party has to apply for execution within a certain period of limitation prescribed to get the fruits of the decree. Here under the Act the duty is enjoined on the Consolidation Authorities themselves to implement the orders which have been passed under the Act and no duty is cast on the person in whose favour the decision has been given to make an application to the authorities under the Act for implementation of that order within any prescribed period of limitation. In our opinion, till the order passed by the Consolidation authorities on 13.5.1974 was not finally implemented by the Consolidation Authorities as contemplated under the Rules, the proceedings under the Act would be deemed to be pending. The order which has been passed in favour of the contesting respondents was to be incorporated by the Consolidation Authorities in the revenue records. The Consolidation Authorities having not done so, the proceedings in respect thereof cannot be said to have been concluded before de-notification of the village. The proceedings for correcting the revenue records in pursuance of the order dated 13.5.1974 would necessarily be taken to be pending on the date of the notification issued under Section 52 (1) of the Act. The Consolidation Authorities were thus bound to implement the directions contained in the final order dated 13.5.1974 under the Act even though a notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act had taken place. The Consolidation Authorities were thus bound to implement the directions contained in the final order dated 13.5.1974 under the Act even though a notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act had taken place. In out opinion, the view taken by learned Single Judge in the case of Raja Ram (supra) does not lay down the correct law.'' (vi) In Shiv Shankar and another v. State of U.P. and others; 2017(11) ADJ 822 , the Court has held as under : ''8. Rule 109-A of the Rules framed under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act casts a duty upon the consolidation authorities to give effect to the orders passed. No specific application is required for such implementation and, therefore, the question of application being barred by limitation does not arise. In Mukhtar v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others: 1993 RD 457 , a Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act casts a duty on consolidation authorities to implement the orders which are passed under the Act. The Division Bench held that since duty is cast upon the consolidation authorities to implement the order passed under the Act, the proceeding to implement the order, if not already implemented, would be deemed pending on the date of notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and as such the proceedings can continue even after notification under Section 52 of the Act. This Court is therefore of the view that the objection taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that application under Rule 109-A was not maintainable because consolidation operations had come to a close pursuant to a notification under Section 52 of the Act, is worthy of rejection and is, accordingly, rejected.''� 24. After considering the aforesaid decisions, this Court at the outset notices that a Division Bench of Ram Bahadur (Supra) was the first case in point of time where it was held that the Consolidation Authorities have jurisdiction after the notification is made under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953 on the premise that Section 52 of the Act of 1953 does not destroy the rights of the parties. 25. The observations made in the said case was in different context. 25. The observations made in the said case was in different context. It was held that if an appeal or revision is filed with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the delay is condoned then the appeal or revision is to be heard on merits and so it was held that in such a situation the proceedings are revived. 26. It is further relevant to notice that there after came the other Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Ghafoor (Supra) wherein it was held that the Consolidation Authorities lose their jurisdiction upon notification made under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953. The Division Bench in Ghafoor (Supra) did not consider the decision of the earlier Division Bench in case of Ram Bahadur (Supra). 27. At the same time, it would be noticed that another Division Bench in Hari Ram (Supra) held that the Consolidation Authorities do not have jurisdiction after the notification issued under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953. However, even this Division Bench in case of Hari Ram (Supra) did not notice the earlier Division Bench decision of Ram Bahadur (Supra). Even the later Division Bench decision of Mukhtar (supra) which held that the Consolidation Authorities do have jurisdiction did not notice the earlier Division Bench decision of Hari Ram (Supra). 28. Thus, it would be seen that though there are two Division Bench decisions namely that of Ram Bahadur (Supra) and Mukhtar (Supra) which hold that the Consolidation Authorities do not loose their jurisdiction after Section 52 (1) Notification, however, there are two other Division Bench cases of Ghafoor (Supra) and Hariram (Supra) which hold that the Consolidation Authorities lose jurisdiction upon notification made under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953 and in the same vein, there are several decisions of learned Single Judges who have also taken contrary views which are not in conformity with each other and there is a wide chasm amongst them. 29. Significantly, a learned Single of this Court finding that there were conflicting decisions rendered in the matter, it referred the matter to be placed before a Larger Bench and Hon'ble the Chief Justice was pleased to place the matter before a Division Bench. 30. 29. Significantly, a learned Single of this Court finding that there were conflicting decisions rendered in the matter, it referred the matter to be placed before a Larger Bench and Hon'ble the Chief Justice was pleased to place the matter before a Division Bench. 30. The Division Bench so constituted in Writ-B No. 33966 of 2016 (Asharfi Devi and 7 others v. DDC, Varanasi and 3 others) alongwith other connected petition was considering the following question, which is being reproduced hereinafter : ''Whether consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to correct clerical and arithmetical errors in any document, prepared under the provisions of the Act, exercising their power under Section 42-A of the Act, after issuance of notification under Section 52 of the Act of Act.'' 31. The aforesaid Division Bench in Asharfi Devi (Supra) further found that there were divergent opinions of the Division Bench itself, hence, it was of the opinion that it would be appropriate that the matter may be placed before a Full Bench and the said Division Bench in the case of Asharfi Devi (Supra) vide its order dated 16.11.2019 referred the matter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement and the relevant portion thereof reads as under : ''31. From the aforesaid two judgments of the Division Bench, it is evident that both the Division Bench has taken divergent view. In the above back ground the learned Single Judge has made this reference. 32. Regard being had to the fact that the attention of the later division bench was not invited to the contrary view taken by the earlier Division Bench in Gafoor v. Additional Commissioner, (1979) RD (DB) 33. ------*****-----*****------*****-----***** 38. Applying the principle in the present case we find that there is not only divergent opinion of two Division Benches but learned Single Judges also took divergent views in a larger number of cases have already delineated in foregoing paragraphs. 39. In view of the above, we are of the view that the matter needs consideration by Full Bench for authoritative declaration in law.'' 32. 39. In view of the above, we are of the view that the matter needs consideration by Full Bench for authoritative declaration in law.'' 32. Amongst the decisions which have been considered by this Court hereinabove, it also includes a decision of this Court in Jagrani (Supra) wherein it was noticed that upon the issuance of notification under Section 52 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953, the Consolidation Authorities cannot initiate proceedings except which are saved in terms of Section 52 (2) of the Act of 1953. 33. This Court notices that the question which has been referred to the Full Bench was only in context with proceedings under Section 42-A of the Act of 1953 and whether the Consolidation Authorities lose their jurisdiction after the Notification made under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953. 34. In the instant case at hand, another issue that arises for consideration is relating to the true scope of the powers of reference which have been conferred in terms of Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953.Whether it is akin to the powers of revision in terms of Section 48 (1) or it is altogether different and if so then how does Section 52 (1) or 52 (2) of the Act of 1953 interplays with such power of reference. 35. It also needs to be considered as to whether the reference proceedings are merely corrective in nature if so then whether they can be covered or are akin to powers vested in Consolidation Authorities in terms of Section 42-A of the Act of 1953 or they are adjudicatory in nature. An attempt was made to consider the scope of Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953 in the case of Brij Bir Singh (Supra) but even the said case does not explain the scope with clarity. 36. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is vested with the Revisional powers which it exercises in terms of Section 48 (1) of the Act of 1953 but what is relevant to notice is that Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953 was introduced by an amendment. Then whether, it confers specialized jurisdiction of a reference but its purpose has not been clearly delineated in the Act. 37. Then whether, it confers specialized jurisdiction of a reference but its purpose has not been clearly delineated in the Act. 37. At this stage, it will be relevant to note that an order was passed by the Consolidation Commissioner dated 06th November, 2023 bearing No. 5039/G-415/2019-20 wherein in paragraph 6 and 7 it has been indicated that after the promulgation of the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953, the proceedings for reference also may not be initiated and the relevant portion of the said order dated 06th November, 2023 is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference : 38. Having considered the aforesaid and noticing that even the Consolidation Commissioner has issued an order that after the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953, the Consolidation Authorities may not even exercise their power under Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953 then what would be the occasion for conferring the power of reference and when such powers can be exercised and to what extent, also needs to be considered. 39. If it is held that upon notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953 except for the two type of situations which are saved in terms of Section 52 (2) of the Act of 1953 then neither any appeal, revision, correction proceedings or reference proceedings can be taken note of and in case if it is held that the bar of Section 52 (1) does not apply to correction or reference proceedings but for arriving at such conclusion, it would be necessary to deal and define the scope of reference and whether it is a corrective or adjudicatory jurisdiction. 40. 40. It would be worthwhile to state that a large number of cases emanating from throughout the State flood this Court and in some cases the Consolidation Authorities refuse to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the notification under Section 52 (1) has been issued whereas in many cases, the Consolidation Authorities in exercise of reference proceedings under Section 48 (3) exercise jurisdiction which not only has the impact of correcting entries but even recognizing certain rights and it has the impact of creating or granting new rights and that too after several decades from the date of notification made under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953 and by then the original records are weeded out, and it also marginalises the operation of Section 27 of the Act of 1953. 41. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that this matter may also be placed before a Larger Bench to consider the following questions : (i) What is the true scope of powers vested with the Deputy Director of Consolidation in terms of Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953 i.e. to say whether it is corrective in nature or adjudicatory; (ii) Whether the power of reference can be exercised by the Deputy Director of Consolidation after the notification is made in terms of Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953; (iii) Whether the reference proceedings can be said to be saved in terms of Section 52 (2) of the Act of 1953. 42. In light of the aforesaid, till the reference is answered, the interim order granted earlier by the Court, shall continue. 43. The Senior Registrar is directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court for constitution of a Larger Bench for early resolution of the vexed question.