JUDGMENT : Alok Mathur, J. 1. Heard Sri Humayun Mirza, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Sri Vimal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner has confined his arguments to the challenged made to the order dated 18.03.2006 passed by Consolidation Officer thereby referring the dispute to the Dy. Director of Consolidation U/S 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. The dispute in the present case pertains to chak No. 147, Gata No. 874 situated at Village Surajpur Khapraila Pargana Pratapganj Tahsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki (now Gata No. 1084 and 1085). 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that during consolidation proceedings, the petitioners had filed an objection for recording their names on 3/4th share of the land which have been purchased by them on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by Ghirrau. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objections by means of order dated 17.06.1994. It has been submitted that it is during the litigation that Dwarka and Sunder died and Ghirrau appeared before the Consolidation Officer and his statement was recorded and he also subsequently died during the proceedings. 5. For the sake of convenience the family tree of the disputed parties is as under Puran (Dead) Vipat (Dead) Dwarika (Dead) Issueless Ghirrau Sundar (Dead) Mahesh (Unmarried) 6. Against the order dated 17.06.1994, Mahesh filed an appeal where a purported compromise was arrived at between the parties and the appeal was decided in terms of the compromise on 23.04.1998. A revision was filed by respondent No. 1 which was also dismissed on 29.05.2000. After the order dated 29.05.2000, no appeal was filed by respondents and the dispute stood concluded but subsequently it seems that respondent No. 1 had approached the Consolidation Commissioner and certain inquiries were got done on the basis of which Consolidation Commissioner wrote to the Consolidation Officer for reference of the dispute to the Dy. Director of Consolidation. 7. As per the directions of the Consolidation Commissioner, the Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 29.11.2005 referred the dispute to the Dy. Director of Consolidation. 7. As per the directions of the Consolidation Commissioner, the Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 29.11.2005 referred the dispute to the Dy. Director of Consolidation but the petitioners being aggrieved by the said reference filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 1040 (Consolidation) of 2005 which was allowed by this Court by means of order dated 18.12.2005 and quashed the said order. This Court was of the view that as per the provision of Section 48 (3) of C.H. Act a reference could have been made only after hearing all the parties and as the reference had been made only on the letter written by the Consolidation Commissioner, this Court was of the view that statutory provision U/S 48(3) of C.H.Act had not been complied and consequently the order dated 29.11.2005 was set aside remanding the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for passing an order afresh. It is in the remand proceedings that the impugned order has been passed referring the matter to the Dy. Director of Consolidation by means of impugned order dated 18.03.2006. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has raised a legal argument that the consolidation operations stood concluded by issuance of a notification U/S 52 of C.H. Act on 27.06.2003 and therefore the Dy. Director of Consolidation was denuded of his powers to entertain any reference U/S 48(3) of U.P. C.H.Act and consequently the impugned order dated 18.03.2006 was illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that on merits as well as on law the entire proceedings have been held in a fraudulent manner and at the relevant time when the alleged compromise is said to have been arrived at respondent No. 1 was minor and apart from that he submits that the entire property has been sold by Ghirrau to Dwarka by means of a registered sale deed on 23.04.1984. While on the other hand Ghirrau has sold the property in favour of petitioners by registered sale deed on 25.11.1986 and submits that on the date when the subsequent sale deed was executed, no further land or interest in the land remained with Ghirrau which could have been transferred in favour of petitioners and therefore they are not entitled for any land belonging to Ghirrau and therefore submits that the entire exercise was fraudulently done by the petitioners and accordingly the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record. 11. The proceedings in the present case have been initiated at the behest of the petitioners who had purchased 3/4th share of the property in the disputed land from Ghirrau by means of registered sale deed dated 25.11.1986. The application of the petitioners was allowed by means of order dated 17.06.1994 and subsequently an appeal was preferred by the respondents which was also rejected on 23.04.1998. 12. It is noticed that in the appellate proceedings a compromise was produced before the court entered into between the petitioners and the respondents and the appellate court on the basis of the said compromise has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer, directing the mutation of the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. While before the Dy. Director of Consolidation in revision the respondents have alleged that a compromise was fraudulently entered and therefore could not be relied upon but the Dy. Director of Consolidation did not accept the contention of the respondents and rejected the revision. 13. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that a reference has been made at this stage by the Consolidation Officer U/S 48(3) of C.H. Act to the Dy. Director of Consolidation. The scope of jurisdiction U/S 48(3) with regard to reference has been discussed in multiple cases by this Court as discussed below. 14. This Court in the case of Hari Ram Vs. 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. 14. This Court in the case of Hari Ram Vs. 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.” 15. In Nanhki Vs. 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. 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 reported 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. 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 . 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. 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 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. 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 reported 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.” 16. In Ram Narain and others Vs. DDC, Barabanki; 2020 (147) RD 185 , the Court has held as under:- “13. This Court has perused the judgment and order dated 07.08.2015 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. Addl. 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 Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Ors.; 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. 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. 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 Consalidation 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.” 17. In Smt. Malti Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others ; 2021 , 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 & 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.” 18. In Sri Pal & Others Vs. 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.” 18. In Sri Pal & Others Vs. 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.” 19. In Raj Karan Singh Vs. 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. 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. 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.” 20. In Smt. Jagrani @ Ram Jiyayi Vs. 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 31.03.2008, 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 14.07.2015 as evident from annexure no.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. 23. Another fact which is not disputed is that Raja Ram made his application under Section 12 of the Act on 14.07.2015 as evident from annexure no.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 08.11.2016 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 28.09.2017 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 08.11.2016, the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 28.09.2017 and the order impugned dated 09.05.2019 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. 08.11.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer, 28.09.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 09.05.2019 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.” 21. Therefore, the Consolidation Officer could not have made a reference U/S 48(3) of C.H. Act after issuance of notification U/S 52 of C.H. Act and consequently the impugned order is clearly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and therefore set aside. 22. After examining the entire report and after hearing the parties, this Court finds that the Dy. Director of Consolidation has also not decided the revision preferred by the respondent No. 1 resulting in the order dated 29.05.2000 in the manner it ought to have been decided. This Court finds that respondent No. 1 had raised all the objections including that the compromise was entered fraudulently and also that after transferring the land by means of sale deed of 1984 no further land remained with Ghirrau which could be transferred to the petitioners and consequently he does not derive any interest or right in the disputed property are certain seminal issues which ought to have been determined by the Dy. Director of Consolidation to give a quates to the matter rather than merely rejecting the revision of respondent No. 1 on extraneous grounds. 23. Learned counsel for petitioner has fairly stated that he would not have any objection if the matter is remitted to Dy. Director of Consolidation to consider the revision filed by respondent No. 2 on merits where the petitioners also would have full rights to take his claims and right in the property. 24. In light of the above and with the consent of the parties, the order dated 29.05.2000 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation is also set aside and the matter is remitted to him to decide the matter afresh. In the remand proceedings as directed by this Court the Dy. Director of Consolidation would permit both the parties to adduce evidence and after hearing both the parties shall decide the case in accordance with law after giving due reasons and considering all the grounds taken by them. 25. In the remand proceedings as directed by this Court the Dy. Director of Consolidation would permit both the parties to adduce evidence and after hearing both the parties shall decide the case in accordance with law after giving due reasons and considering all the grounds taken by them. 25. Considering that much time has passed, both the parties accept that they will file written statements before the DDC within one month from today and the Dy. Director of Consolidation is also required to conclude the proceedings within three months thereafter in accordance with law, in case there in no impediment. 26. The parties is also undertake to cooperate in the consolidation proceeding before the DDC 27. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed.