Judgment:
ORDER
Rajes Kumar, J.
1. By means of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharthnagar dated 29.11.2006 in Revision No. 99 of 2005 by which the revision filed by the petitioners has been rejected.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent Abdullah, son of Kallu, had an original holding of plot Nos. 420 and 421 of chak No. 12. The aforesaid plot was on a road side and was valuable land, therefore, the claim was that it was outside the purview of the consolidation. The claim of Abdullah has been accepted but tt appears that while making the map the chak was twisted and some body else was given the land adjoining to the road instead of making the plots in square shape. Therefore, Abdullah filed the application under Section 42 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the correction of the map which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer, Etawah vide order dated 17.7.2003. The appeal against the said order has been rejected by the appellate authority on 18.1.2005 against which the Revision No. 99 of 2005 was filed by the petitioners which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Consolidation Officer has illegally passed the order dated 17.7.2003. The said order has been passed after the Notification under Section 52 of the Act which was published on 14.1.2003.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the rectification can be made under Section 42 of the Act even after the Notification under Section 52 of the Act. He further submitted that it is settled by this Court that the land situated on main road which has a substantial commercial value is to be excluded from the consolidation operation. In support of his contention he relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Ors. 2006 (100) RD 434 : 2004 (5) AWC 4520 and in the case of Sheesh Ram and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad and Ors. passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26883 of 1999, decided on 4.5.2009 : : 2009 (3) AWC 2459.
5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I. have perused the impugned orders.
6. All the authorities have recorded categorical findings that the respondent had an original holding of plot Nos. 420 and 421 of chak No. 12 which was on a road side. This Court in the case of Ram Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Ors. (supra) has held that the land of the road side should be excluded from the consolidation operation being valuable land. By the order dated 17.7.2003 the Consolidation Officer has only corrected the map which was well within his jurisdiction. Section 42 of the Act has an overriding effect and the order can be passed under Section 42 of the Act even after the Notification under Section 52 of the Act. This view is supported by the decision in the case of Sheesh Ram and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad and Ors. passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26883 of 1999, decided on 4.5.2009 : 2009 (3) AWC 2459.
7. In my view the findings of the Consolidation Officer, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority are finding of fact based on material on record which do not require any interference.
In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.