High Court

3. In the aforesaid background of the case, this Court proceeded to disposed of both the petitions finally at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present today before this Court.

4. Petition i.e. WRIT - B No. 844 of 2024 has been filed seeking following main relief(s):- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.6.2024 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Bikapur, District- Ayodhya (the opposite party No. 1), as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 1 to expunge the entry of impugned order from the revenue records (if it has been entered over there) and maintain the earlier entries. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 2 not to interfere in right, title and possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute, in garb of the impugned order of opposite party No. 1."

5. Petition i.e. WRIT - B No. 9 of 2025 has been filed seeking following main relief(s):- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and orders dated 2.8.2024 and

18.1.2021 passed by the opposite party No. 1&2, as contained in Annexure No. 1&2 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 2 to reconsider the application for correction of order dated 29.12.2020 filed by the petitioners. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in any nature which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

6. Brief facts of the case which are brought to the notice of this Court from the above indicated petitions and which are relevant for the purposes of final disposal of these petitions are as under :- (i) Challenging the order dated 28.05.2019, inadvertently indicated as

25.05.2019 in the memo of appeal as also in the application seeking interim relief, passed by Consolidation Officer, Bikapur, Ayodhya (in short "CO") in Case No. 505/506, under 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), the appeal, registered as Appeal No. 1522, was filed by the petitioners. (ii) Considering the facts of the case including the date of the order passed by CO, inadvertently indicated in the memo of appeal as

25.05.2019, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya (in short "SOC") passed the interim order on 13.06.2019, which reads as under :- उभय पक " कक ससनन अपपल ववचनरनधपन हह। अवर नयन० कक पतनवलप आहहत कक जनवव। पकक कक नकवटस जनरप हककर वद० 28/06/19 वनसतनरण तक चकबनदप अधधकनरप कव आदवश वद० 25/5/19 कन वकयननवयन एवव पभनव सथवगत रहवगन।" . कक पसतसत हक। नयनयवहत मम अपपल कव (iii) After the order dated 13.06.2019, considering the fact that in the memo of appeal as also in the application seeking interim relief the correct date of order of CO has not been mentioned and the same could not be corrected at the time of filing of appeal, an application seeking amendment was preferred on 13.06.2019 itself, i.e. the date of passing of interim order, quoted above, (iv) It would be apt to indicate that order of CO was on record with the memo of appeal. (v) The SOC, thereafter, permitted the appellants-petitioners to make necessary corrections/amendments in the memo of appeal vide order dated 14.06.2019, which reads as under : " पसतसत पनथरनन पत धलवपककट तसवट कक शसवद हवतस पसतसत वकयन गयन। पनथर कक ससनन कव सथनन पर वद० 28/05/19 गयन। वद० 25/5/19 पढन जनयव। पनथरननपत तदनससनर सवपकनर वकयन जनतन हह। पवतवनदप अपनन पक पसतसत करनव नहह आयव।" . (vi) After the order 14.06.2019 an application was preferred by the contesting opposite party for recall of order dated 14.06.2019 in compliance of which the corrections/amendments were carried out by the appellants-petitioners in the memo of appeal. This application was preferred on 13.11.2019. (vii) The aforesaid application preferred on 13.11.2019 was allowed vide order dated 07.12.2019. (viii) After the aforesaid, the SOC passed the order dated 14.12.2020 and by this order allowed the amendment application dated

13.06.2019 seeking preferred by the appellants-petitioners partly. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.12.2020 reads as under :- " आदवश

13.06.2019 कक उपरकक ववववचन कव आधनर पर सवशकधन पनथरननपत वदननववकत आव वशक रप सव सवपकनर करतव हहए अपपल मवमक व सथगन पनथरनन पत मम जहनव-जहनव वतधथ- 25.05.2019 अववकत करनव कक अनसमवत पदनन कक जनतप हह। तदनससनर सवशकधन वकयन जनयव। वनसतव बहस पतनवलप वदननवक 21.12.2020 . वहनव वतधथ-28.05.2019 अववकत हह, वहनव- कक पवश हक।" – – (ix) It would be apt to indicate at this stage that the appellants- petitioners carried out the necessary corrections/amendments. (x) After the order dated 14.12.2020 the appellants-petitioners preferred an application dated 29.12.2020 for correction of order dated

13.06.2019 passed by SOC whereby the order of CO impugned before SOC was stayed till disposal of appeal i.e. 25.05.2019 (initially mentioned in the memo of appeal) which was subsequently corrected in memo of appeal in compliance of order of SOC as 28.05.2019. (xi) From the aforesaid facts what transpires is to the effect that the implementation and operation of order dated 25.05.2019 subsequently corrected as 28.05.2019, was stayed vide order dated 13.06.2019 by SOC and this order has not been recalled. (xii) In other words, the order dated 13.06.2019 staying the implementation and operation of order of CO in issue in appeal passed by SOC is still intact. (xiii) The appellants-petitioners in the aforesaid background of the case filed an application dated 14.12.2020/19.12.2020 for making corrections in the order dated 13.06.2019. This application was rejected by SOC vide impugned order dated 18.01.2021. Relevant part of the order dated 18.01.2021 reads as under :- मम धनरन-202 भभ- वदननवक-13.06.2019 वदननवक-24.12.2020/29.12.2020 धलए वनणरय कक वतधथ मम 25.05.2019 मम पनररत आदवश वदननवक-12.01.2021 ममनव उभयपकक कव तकरव कक ससनन। मन० उचच नयनयनलय दनरन ररट यनवचकन सव0- " कव दनरन यनचप कव सवशकधन पनथरननपत कन वनसतनरण वनयत वतधथ 16.01.2021 कक वनसतनररत वकयव जननव कन वनदरश वदयन गयन। वदननवक-16.01.2021 कक शकक पसतनव कव कनरण अधधवकनगण कनयर सव ववरत रहनव कव कनरण पतनवलप मम वदननवक-18.01.2021 वतधथ वनयत कक गयप। आज वदननवक-18.01.2021 कक उभयपकक कव तकरव कक ससनन गयन। अपपलनवट दनरन कक पनथरननपत दवकर सथगन आदवश 13.06.2019 रनजसव अधधवनयम कव अनतगरत धलवपककय तसवट कव कक जगह 28.05.2019 सवशकधधत वनवनरण कव वकयव जननव कक मनवग कक हह। पतनवलप कव अवलककन सव सपष हह वक सथगन पनथरननपत मम अवर नयनयनलय दनरन पनररत आदवश वदननवक-25.05.2019 वदननवक-30.05.2019 कक ददरनन अपपल सथवगत वकयव जननव कक मनवग कक गयप थप। ततकनलपन पपठनसपन अधधकनरप दनरन वनसतनरण तक चकबनदप अधधकनरप कव आदवश वदननवक-25.05.2019 कन वकयननवयन एवव पभनव सथवगत वकयन गयन। इस पकनर सपष हह वक पनथर / अपपलनवट दनरन पसतसत सथगन पनथरननपत मम उवलधखत अवर नयनयनलय कव आदवश कक वतधथ कक हप सथवगत वकयन गयन हह, धजसमम वकसप पकनर कन धलवपककय तसवट कन हकनन नहह पनयन जनतन हह। यदवप अपपलनट दनरन वदननवक-13.06.2019 कक वदयव गए सवशकधन पनथरननपत पर ततकनलपन पपठनसपन अधधकनरप दनरन वदननवक-14.06.2019 कक एकपकपय रप सव सवशकधन पनथरननपत जक पवतपकप कव वनजदनयर पनथरननपत वदननववकत 13.11.2019 सवपकनर वकयन गयन, पर वदननवक-07.12.2019 वनरसत वकयन गयन। तदसपरननत वदननवक-14.12.2020 वतधथ 25.05.2019 अववकत वकयव जननव कन आदवश पनररत वकयन गयन। लगभग डवढ वरर - ववलमब सव वदननवक 13.06.2019 कक पनररत वकयव गयव सथगन आदवश मम अववकत वनणरय वतधथ कक सवशकधधत वकयव जननव सवबवधप पनथरननपत सवपकनर वकयव जननव यकगय नहह हह। तदनससनर अपपलनवट कन पनथरननपत वदननवक-24.12.2020/29.12.2020 वनसतनररत वकयन जनतन कव सथनन पर वतधथ 28.05.2019 पशनगत पनथरननपत वदननवक वदयन गयन हह। इस पकनर पभवर पपठनसपन अधधकनरप दनरन कक आदवश वदननवक-14.06.2019 कक अपपल मवमक व सथगन पनथरननपत मम -24.12.2020/29.12.2020 कक अपपल कव हह। वनसतव बहस पतनवलप वदननवक-29.01.2021 . कक पवश हक।" (xiv) Being aggrieved by order dated 18.01.2021 the appellants- petitioners filed the revision before the revisional authority/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya (in short "DDC") under Section 48(3) of the Act of 1953 registered as Revision No. 1967/202154042300001248 (Surendranath Pathak and Anr. Vs. Itrat Hussain and Ors.). The revisional authority/DDC dismissed the revision vide impugned order dated 02.08.2024. The relevant portion of the same reads as under :- ररट यनवचकन सवखयन 24057/2020 अनय बननम उपसवचनलक चकबनदप व 41 " पसतसत वकयव गयव तकर कव आलकक मम अवर नयनयनलय दनरन पनररत आदवश वदननवक 18.01.2021 कन अवलककन वकयन गयन। ससनवनई कव समय मनननपय उचच नयनयनलय कक ससरवनदननथ पनठक व अनय बननम उप कन अवलककन सवचनलक चकबनदप व अनय मम पनररत आदवश वदननवक 20.01.2021 वकयन एवव मनननपय उचच नयनयनलय मम यकधजत ररट यनवचकन सवखयन 2884 ऑफ 2024 अवनल कस मनर व 3 अनय मम पनररत आदवश वदननवक 31.05.2024 कन अवलककन वकयन। धजससव वववदत हकतन हह वक पभरव ववरद दनधखल पकरण सव सपष हह वक चकबनदप अधधकनरप दनरन पनररत आदवश कव वनगरननपकतनर कक अपपल बनदकबसत अधधकनरप चकबनदप कव नयनयनलय मम आज भप पचधलत हह। दनधखल अपपल मम सवशकधन पर पनररत आदवश वदननवक 28.05.2019/25.05.2019 कव सवशकधन पर अवर नयनयनलय दनरन पसतसत पनथरनन पत कव आधनर पर वदननवक 18.01.2021 कक पनररत आदवश मम सवशकधन कन कवतनधधकनर आदवश पनररत आदवश पनररत वकयन गयन। करनव वनलव समबननधत नयनयनलय कव अधधकनर कवत मम हप वनवहत हकतन हह। उभयपकक कव बपच अपपलपय नयनयनलय मम आज भप अवसर ववदमनन हह। अवर नयनयनलय दनरन पनररत आदवश कन अवलककन कव उपरननत मवरप दवष सव बनदकबसत अधधकनरप चकबनदप दनरन पनररत आदवश मम वकसप पकनर कव हसतकवप कक आवशयकतन नहह हह। तदनससनर वनगरननप वनरसत वकयव जननव यकगय हह। कक धलवपककय तसवट (Sleep of Pen) आदवश उपरकक ववववचन कव आधनर पर यह वनगरननप वनरसत कक जनतप हह। पतनवलप वनद कनयरवनहप उपरननत सववचत अवभलवखनगनर हक।" . (xv) It would be apt to indicate that after the order dated 14.12.2020 an application was filed by the one of the private-opposite party, contesting the claim of the appellants-petitioners, namely Mohd. Hasim Hussain/respondent no.2 in WRIT - B No. 844 of 2024 and respondent no.21 in WRIT - B No. 9 of 2025. This application was filed in terms of Rule 109-A(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. This application was allowed by the impugned order dated 22.06.2024. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:- कव जक वदननवक 4-1-2024 दनरन वनरसत कर वदयन गयन हह, कन अवकन करनयन जननन ववधधक हह, " इसकव पभवर करणनकक रण, अवनलकस मनर व करणनशवकर पसतगण ससरवनदननथ पनठक दनरन वनयम 109 ववरद टप०ए० पनथरनन पत धजलनधधकनरप महकदय कव यहनव वदयन कक वनरसत कर वदयन गयन हह। आदवश वदननवक 7-12- गयन थन, कव अनसपनलन कव समबनध मम जक आखयन च०कतनर दनरन वदननवक 23-12-2019 2019 एवव सहनयक चकबनदप अधधकनरप दनरन वदननवक 24-12-2019 कक दप गयप हह, उसकन अवलककन वकयन गयन। इसमम मभल तथय यह हह वक आदवश वदननवक 14-6-19 कन अवकल अवभलवख मम करनयन जन चसकन हह, और इस आदवश कक बनदकबसत अधधकनरप दनरन अपनव आदवश 7-12-2019 इसधलए आदवश वदननवक 7-12-2019 कयकवक यह अभप तक इस आदवश कव पवतकभ ल ककई भप आदवश ववपकप ससरवनदननथ पनठक यन उनकव बनररसननक दनरन पसतसत नहह वकयन गयन। ऐसव मम आदवश वदननवक 7-12-2019 कव आदवश कक ववधधक रप सव अवकन करनयन जननन ववधधक हह। कयकवक वनयम 109 कव अनतगरत और ववशवरकर वनयम 109 कव अनतगरत मवरव सतर सव ककई नयन आदवश पनररत नहह वकयन जनतन हह, कव वल चकबनदप पनधधकनरप सतर सव पनररत उन आदवशक कन अवकन करनयन जनतन हह जक धनरन 52 कव पकनशन कव बनद पनररत हकतव हह। इसधलए ककई एवव 14-12-2020 पवतकभ ल आदवश पनररत न हकनव कव कनरण आदवश वद०-7-12-2019 कक दवखनव सव सपष हह वक आदवश वद० 7-12-2020 और इस आदवश वनरसत नहह हह, दनरन पभवर मम पनररत आदवश वदननवक 14-06-19 वनरसत वकयन हह। आदवश वदननवक 14-6- 19 कन भप अवकन ववधधक रप सव हकनन चनवहए। इसमम जहनव तक मकतक खनतवदनरक एवव पककनरक कन पशन हह, इसकक दसरसतप मभल अपपल मम हप समभव हह। आदवश वदननवक 7-12-2019 कव अनसपनलन हवतस च०कतनर / स०च०अ० कक आखयन उपरकक अनसमकवदत कक जनतप हह। परवननन जनरप हक। बनद अमलदरनमद पतनवलप दनधखल दफतर हक।" . कन अवकन अवभलवख मम हह, इसधलए वदननवक 7-12-19 क (1)

7. In the aforesaid factual background of the case, the petition(s), under consideration, have been filed.

8. Upon due consideration of aforesaid facts of the case including that order dated 13.06.2019 whereby the SOC protected the interest of the appellants-petitioners is still intact and in this order the date of order of CO was mentioned as 25.05.2019 for the reason that in the memo of appeal this date was mentioned and this date i.e. 25.05.2019 has now been corrected/amended as 28.05.2019, which is correct date of order of CO, in the memo of appeal in terms of order of SOC dated

13.06.2019 read with order of SOC dated 14.12.2020, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 passed by DDC affirming the impugned order dated 18.01.2021 passed by SOC rejecting the application of the appellants-petitioners seeking correction of order dated 13.06.2019 only on the ground of delay are unjustified.

9. For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated 02.08.2024 and

18.01.2021 are hereby set aside. Order dated 22.06.2024. The matter is remanded back to SOC, Ayodhya to disposed of the application dated 24.12.2020/29.12.2020 seeking correction in order dated

13.06.2019 passed by SOC afresh in the light of aforesaid.

10. In so far as the impugned order dated 22.06.2024 passed by CO is concerned, the same shall be subject to the order passed by SOC.

11. With aforesaid, both the petition(s) are disposed of. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Mohit Singh/-

3. In the aforesaid background of the case, this Court proceeded to disposed of both the petitions finally at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present today before this Court.

4. Petition i.e. WRIT - B No. 844 of 2024 has been filed seeking following main relief(s):- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.6.2024 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Bikapur, District- Ayodhya (the opposite party No. 1), as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 1 to expunge the entry of impugned order from the revenue records (if it has been entered over there) and maintain the earlier entries. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 2 not to interfere in right, title and possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute, in garb of the impugned order of opposite party No. 1."

5. Petition i.e. WRIT - B No. 9 of 2025 has been filed seeking following main relief(s):- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and orders dated 2.8.2024 and

18.1.2021 passed by the opposite party No. 1&2, as contained in Annexure No. 1&2 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 2 to reconsider the application for correction of order dated 29.12.2020 filed by the petitioners. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in any nature which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

6. Brief facts of the case which are brought to the notice of this Court from the above indicated petitions and which are relevant for the purposes of final disposal of these petitions are as under :- (i) Challenging the order dated 28.05.2019, inadvertently indicated as

25.05.2019 in the memo of appeal as also in the application seeking interim relief, passed by Consolidation Officer, Bikapur, Ayodhya (in short "CO") in Case No. 505/506, under 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), the appeal, registered as Appeal No. 1522, was filed by the petitioners. (ii) Considering the facts of the case including the date of the order passed by CO, inadvertently indicated in the memo of appeal as

25.05.2019, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya (in short "SOC") passed the interim order on 13.06.2019, which reads as under :- उभय पक " कक ससनन अपपल ववचनरनधपन हह। अवर नयन० कक पतनवलप आहहत कक जनवव। पकक कक नकवटस जनरप हककर वद० 28/06/19 वनसतनरण तक चकबनदप अधधकनरप कव आदवश वद० 25/5/19 कन वकयननवयन एवव पभनव सथवगत रहवगन।" . कक पसतसत हक। नयनयवहत मम अपपल कव (iii) After the order dated 13.06.2019, considering the fact that in the memo of appeal as also in the application seeking interim relief the correct date of order of CO has not been mentioned and the same could not be corrected at the time of filing of appeal, an application seeking amendment was preferred on 13.06.2019 itself, i.e. the date of passing of interim order, quoted above, (iv) It would be apt to indicate that order of CO was on record with the memo of appeal. (v) The SOC, thereafter, permitted the appellants-petitioners to make necessary corrections/amendments in the memo of appeal vide order dated 14.06.2019, which reads as under : " पसतसत पनथरनन पत धलवपककट तसवट कक शसवद हवतस पसतसत वकयन गयन। पनथर कक ससनन कव सथनन पर वद० 28/05/19 गयन। वद० 25/5/19 पढन जनयव। पनथरननपत तदनससनर सवपकनर वकयन जनतन हह। पवतवनदप अपनन पक पसतसत करनव नहह आयव।" . (vi) After the order 14.06.2019 an application was preferred by the contesting opposite party for recall of order dated 14.06.2019 in compliance of which the corrections/amendments were carried out by the appellants-petitioners in the memo of appeal. This application was preferred on 13.11.2019. (vii) The aforesaid application preferred on 13.11.2019 was allowed vide order dated 07.12.2019. (viii) After the aforesaid, the SOC passed the order dated 14.12.2020 and by this order allowed the amendment application dated

13.06.2019 seeking preferred by the appellants-petitioners partly. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.12.2020 reads as under :- " आदवश

13.06.2019 कक उपरकक ववववचन कव आधनर पर सवशकधन पनथरननपत वदननववकत आव वशक रप सव सवपकनर करतव हहए अपपल मवमक व सथगन पनथरनन पत मम जहनव-जहनव वतधथ- 25.05.2019 अववकत करनव कक अनसमवत पदनन कक जनतप हह। तदनससनर सवशकधन वकयन जनयव। वनसतव बहस पतनवलप वदननवक 21.12.2020 . वहनव वतधथ-28.05.2019 अववकत हह, वहनव- कक पवश हक।" – – (ix) It would be apt to indicate at this stage that the appellants- petitioners carried out the necessary corrections/amendments. (x) After the order dated 14.12.2020 the appellants-petitioners preferred an application dated 29.12.2020 for correction of order dated

13.06.2019 passed by SOC whereby the order of CO impugned before SOC was stayed till disposal of appeal i.e. 25.05.2019 (initially mentioned in the memo of appeal) which was subsequently corrected in memo of appeal in compliance of order of SOC as 28.05.2019. (xi) From the aforesaid facts what transpires is to the effect that the implementation and operation of order dated 25.05.2019 subsequently corrected as 28.05.2019, was stayed vide order dated 13.06.2019 by SOC and this order has not been recalled. (xii) In other words, the order dated 13.06.2019 staying the implementation and operation of order of CO in issue in appeal passed by SOC is still intact. (xiii) The appellants-petitioners in the aforesaid background of the case filed an application dated 14.12.2020/19.12.2020 for making corrections in the order dated 13.06.2019. This application was rejected by SOC vide impugned order dated 18.01.2021. Relevant part of the order dated 18.01.2021 reads as under :- मम धनरन-202 भभ- वदननवक-13.06.2019 वदननवक-24.12.2020/29.12.2020 धलए वनणरय कक वतधथ मम 25.05.2019 मम पनररत आदवश वदननवक-12.01.2021 ममनव उभयपकक कव तकरव कक ससनन। मन० उचच नयनयनलय दनरन ररट यनवचकन सव0- " कव दनरन यनचप कव सवशकधन पनथरननपत कन वनसतनरण वनयत वतधथ 16.01.2021 कक वनसतनररत वकयव जननव कन वनदरश वदयन गयन। वदननवक-16.01.2021 कक शकक पसतनव कव कनरण अधधवकनगण कनयर सव ववरत रहनव कव कनरण पतनवलप मम वदननवक-18.01.2021 वतधथ वनयत कक गयप। आज वदननवक-18.01.2021 कक उभयपकक कव तकरव कक ससनन गयन। अपपलनवट दनरन कक पनथरननपत दवकर सथगन आदवश 13.06.2019 रनजसव अधधवनयम कव अनतगरत धलवपककय तसवट कव कक जगह 28.05.2019 सवशकधधत वनवनरण कव वकयव जननव कक मनवग कक हह। पतनवलप कव अवलककन सव सपष हह वक सथगन पनथरननपत मम अवर नयनयनलय दनरन पनररत आदवश वदननवक-25.05.2019 वदननवक-30.05.2019 कक ददरनन अपपल सथवगत वकयव जननव कक मनवग कक गयप थप। ततकनलपन पपठनसपन अधधकनरप दनरन वनसतनरण तक चकबनदप अधधकनरप कव आदवश वदननवक-25.05.2019 कन वकयननवयन एवव पभनव सथवगत वकयन गयन। इस पकनर सपष हह वक पनथर / अपपलनवट दनरन पसतसत सथगन पनथरननपत मम उवलधखत अवर नयनयनलय कव आदवश कक वतधथ कक हप सथवगत वकयन गयन हह, धजसमम वकसप पकनर कन धलवपककय तसवट कन हकनन नहह पनयन जनतन हह। यदवप अपपलनट दनरन वदननवक-13.06.2019 कक वदयव गए सवशकधन पनथरननपत पर ततकनलपन पपठनसपन अधधकनरप दनरन वदननवक-14.06.2019 कक एकपकपय रप सव सवशकधन पनथरननपत जक पवतपकप कव वनजदनयर पनथरननपत वदननववकत 13.11.2019 सवपकनर वकयन गयन, पर वदननवक-07.12.2019 वनरसत वकयन गयन। तदसपरननत वदननवक-14.12.2020 वतधथ 25.05.2019 अववकत वकयव जननव कन आदवश पनररत वकयन गयन। लगभग डवढ वरर - ववलमब सव वदननवक 13.06.2019 कक पनररत वकयव गयव सथगन आदवश मम अववकत वनणरय वतधथ कक सवशकधधत वकयव जननव सवबवधप पनथरननपत सवपकनर वकयव जननव यकगय नहह हह। तदनससनर अपपलनवट कन पनथरननपत वदननवक-24.12.2020/29.12.2020 वनसतनररत वकयन जनतन कव सथनन पर वतधथ 28.05.2019 पशनगत पनथरननपत वदननवक वदयन गयन हह। इस पकनर पभवर पपठनसपन अधधकनरप दनरन कक आदवश वदननवक-14.06.2019 कक अपपल मवमक व सथगन पनथरननपत मम -24.12.2020/29.12.2020 कक अपपल कव हह। वनसतव बहस पतनवलप वदननवक-29.01.2021 . कक पवश हक।" (xiv) Being aggrieved by order dated 18.01.2021 the appellants- petitioners filed the revision before the revisional authority/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya (in short "DDC") under Section 48(3) of the Act of 1953 registered as Revision No. 1967/202154042300001248 (Surendranath Pathak and Anr. Vs. Itrat Hussain and Ors.). The revisional authority/DDC dismissed the revision vide impugned order dated 02.08.2024. The relevant portion of the same reads as under :- ररट यनवचकन सवखयन 24057/2020 अनय बननम उपसवचनलक चकबनदप व 41 " पसतसत वकयव गयव तकर कव आलकक मम अवर नयनयनलय दनरन पनररत आदवश वदननवक 18.01.2021 कन अवलककन वकयन गयन। ससनवनई कव समय मनननपय उचच नयनयनलय कक ससरवनदननथ पनठक व अनय बननम उप कन अवलककन सवचनलक चकबनदप व अनय मम पनररत आदवश वदननवक 20.01.2021 वकयन एवव मनननपय उचच नयनयनलय मम यकधजत ररट यनवचकन सवखयन 2884 ऑफ 2024 अवनल कस मनर व 3 अनय मम पनररत आदवश वदननवक 31.05.2024 कन अवलककन वकयन। धजससव वववदत हकतन हह वक पभरव ववरद दनधखल पकरण सव सपष हह वक चकबनदप अधधकनरप दनरन पनररत आदवश कव वनगरननपकतनर कक अपपल बनदकबसत अधधकनरप चकबनदप कव नयनयनलय मम आज भप पचधलत हह। दनधखल अपपल मम सवशकधन पर पनररत आदवश वदननवक 28.05.2019/25.05.2019 कव सवशकधन पर अवर नयनयनलय दनरन पसतसत पनथरनन पत कव आधनर पर वदननवक 18.01.2021 कक पनररत आदवश मम सवशकधन कन कवतनधधकनर आदवश पनररत आदवश पनररत वकयन गयन। करनव वनलव समबननधत नयनयनलय कव अधधकनर कवत मम हप वनवहत हकतन हह। उभयपकक कव बपच अपपलपय नयनयनलय मम आज भप अवसर ववदमनन हह। अवर नयनयनलय दनरन पनररत आदवश कन अवलककन कव उपरननत मवरप दवष सव बनदकबसत अधधकनरप चकबनदप दनरन पनररत आदवश मम वकसप पकनर कव हसतकवप कक आवशयकतन नहह हह। तदनससनर वनगरननप वनरसत वकयव जननव यकगय हह। कक धलवपककय तसवट (Sleep of Pen) आदवश उपरकक ववववचन कव आधनर पर यह वनगरननप वनरसत कक जनतप हह। पतनवलप वनद कनयरवनहप उपरननत सववचत अवभलवखनगनर हक।" . (xv) It would be apt to indicate that after the order dated 14.12.2020 an application was filed by the one of the private-opposite party, contesting the claim of the appellants-petitioners, namely Mohd. Hasim Hussain/respondent no.2 in WRIT - B No. 844 of 2024 and respondent no.21 in WRIT - B No. 9 of 2025. This application was filed in terms of Rule 109-A(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. This application was allowed by the impugned order dated 22.06.2024. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:- कव जक वदननवक 4-1-2024 दनरन वनरसत कर वदयन गयन हह, कन अवकन करनयन जननन ववधधक हह, " इसकव पभवर करणनकक रण, अवनलकस मनर व करणनशवकर पसतगण ससरवनदननथ पनठक दनरन वनयम 109 ववरद टप०ए० पनथरनन पत धजलनधधकनरप महकदय कव यहनव वदयन कक वनरसत कर वदयन गयन हह। आदवश वदननवक 7-12- गयन थन, कव अनसपनलन कव समबनध मम जक आखयन च०कतनर दनरन वदननवक 23-12-2019 2019 एवव सहनयक चकबनदप अधधकनरप दनरन वदननवक 24-12-2019 कक दप गयप हह, उसकन अवलककन वकयन गयन। इसमम मभल तथय यह हह वक आदवश वदननवक 14-6-19 कन अवकल अवभलवख मम करनयन जन चसकन हह, और इस आदवश कक बनदकबसत अधधकनरप दनरन अपनव आदवश 7-12-2019 इसधलए आदवश वदननवक 7-12-2019 कयकवक यह अभप तक इस आदवश कव पवतकभ ल ककई भप आदवश ववपकप ससरवनदननथ पनठक यन उनकव बनररसननक दनरन पसतसत नहह वकयन गयन। ऐसव मम आदवश वदननवक 7-12-2019 कव आदवश कक ववधधक रप सव अवकन करनयन जननन ववधधक हह। कयकवक वनयम 109 कव अनतगरत और ववशवरकर वनयम 109 कव अनतगरत मवरव सतर सव ककई नयन आदवश पनररत नहह वकयन जनतन हह, कव वल चकबनदप पनधधकनरप सतर सव पनररत उन आदवशक कन अवकन करनयन जनतन हह जक धनरन 52 कव पकनशन कव बनद पनररत हकतव हह। इसधलए ककई एवव 14-12-2020 पवतकभ ल आदवश पनररत न हकनव कव कनरण आदवश वद०-7-12-2019 कक दवखनव सव सपष हह वक आदवश वद० 7-12-2020 और इस आदवश वनरसत नहह हह, दनरन पभवर मम पनररत आदवश वदननवक 14-06-19 वनरसत वकयन हह। आदवश वदननवक 14-6- 19 कन भप अवकन ववधधक रप सव हकनन चनवहए। इसमम जहनव तक मकतक खनतवदनरक एवव पककनरक कन पशन हह, इसकक दसरसतप मभल अपपल मम हप समभव हह। आदवश वदननवक 7-12-2019 कव अनसपनलन हवतस च०कतनर / स०च०अ० कक आखयन उपरकक अनसमकवदत कक जनतप हह। परवननन जनरप हक। बनद अमलदरनमद पतनवलप दनधखल दफतर हक।" . कन अवकन अवभलवख मम हह, इसधलए वदननवक 7-12-19 क (1)

7. In the aforesaid factual background of the case, the petition(s), under consideration, have been filed.

8. Upon due consideration of aforesaid facts of the case including that order dated 13.06.2019 whereby the SOC protected the interest of the appellants-petitioners is still intact and in this order the date of order of CO was mentioned as 25.05.2019 for the reason that in the memo of appeal this date was mentioned and this date i.e. 25.05.2019 has now been corrected/amended as 28.05.2019, which is correct date of order of CO, in the memo of appeal in terms of order of SOC dated

13.06.2019 read with order of SOC dated 14.12.2020, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 passed by DDC affirming the impugned order dated 18.01.2021 passed by SOC rejecting the application of the appellants-petitioners seeking correction of order dated 13.06.2019 only on the ground of delay are unjustified.

9. For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated 02.08.2024 and

18.01.2021 are hereby set aside. Order dated 22.06.2024. The matter is remanded back to SOC, Ayodhya to disposed of the application dated 24.12.2020/29.12.2020 seeking correction in order dated

13.06.2019 passed by SOC afresh in the light of aforesaid.

10. In so far as the impugned order dated 22.06.2024 passed by CO is concerned, the same shall be subject to the order passed by SOC.

11. With aforesaid, both the petition(s) are disposed of. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Mohit Singh/-