Preventing illegal mutations of auction certificates/government pattadars and conducting preliminary examination before registering cases under Section 48 and 52(2) of the Consolidation Act and Rule 109 ( AI traslated version of official Hindi Version . In case of discrepancies ,the HIndi Version shall Prevail )

Sender, Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. To, All- 1- Deputy Director Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh. 2- Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh. 3- Consolidation Officer / Assistant Consolidation Officer, Uttar Pradesh. Subject: Auction Certificates/Prevention of illegal transfers of Government Lessees and pre- registration of suits under Section 48 and 52 (2) of the Consolidation of Consolidation Act and Rule 109. Sir, Drawing your attention to the above subject, it is to be said that the consolidation process is a public welfare scheme. In its implementation, judicial matters are resolved by the consolidation authorities in the light of the provisions contained in the existing Acts and Rules in the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Consolidation of Holdings Manual. For the quality of the work of the presiding officers of consolidation, it is necessary to comply with the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act-1953 and the Consolidation Manual, besides other related Acts and Codes. 1- Under the provisions of Section 279, 284, 286 Rule 285 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 and Section 176, 177 Rule 176 of Revenue Code 2006 and Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Evacuee Property Act 1950 and Custodian Enemy Property Act 1968 and Section 17 of Registration Act 1908, the auction certificates issued by the Sub-District Magistrate, Collector and other presiding officers, banks etc. which are of auction sale price more than Rs. 50 in the past and Rs. 100 at present, can be accepted in evidence under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 only if they are duly registered and stamped as per the system on the date of execution. No suit for transfer of title will be filed or rejected if the auction certificate or auction order is not registered and duly stamped as provided in Section 3 (Schedule 1, Item 18) and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Such applications should be dismissed at the initial stage. 2. The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 129 and Section 133(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Rule 178, the Government Grants Act, 1895, Nazul, State Property, and other lessees and government lessees under Sections 74, 147, and 152 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, do not apply to these lands. No Act provides for the transferability and inheritance rights of non-transferable or transferable landholders. The provisions of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the Revenue Code, 2006, do not apply to these lessees. Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates that all documents, except wills, be executed and registered within four months from the date of the final decree. Regarding these leases, the rights of the lessee will be governed by the conditions and provisions mentioned by the competent authority sanctioning the lease in the execution of the lease and the lessee will be bound by those conditions. Therefore, on such leases, orders should not be passed against the law by giving the rights of non-transferable landholder or transferable landholder or by making non- transferable landholder or transferable landholder on the basis of adverse possession or by giving declaratory rights on adverse possession and by sale deed or inheritance, will and wherever there is difficulty, guidance should be taken from the Collector of the district and this Directorate. 3. Section 48(1) of the Consolidation Act, 1953 provides as follows: The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceeding taken by a subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of that proceeding or as to the correctness, validity, or propriety of any order other than the interlocutory order passed by that authority in that case or proceeding, and after affording the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, may pass such order in that case or proceeding as he deems appropriate. To comply with the above legal provision, it is essential that the District Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation regularly review the cases decided by their subordinates on a fixed date each month. In the review, any decisions of subordinates in which they suspect irregularities, the correctness, validity, or propriety of the order should be regularly called for in their court, and after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard, appropriate orders should be passed. A list of such cases should be sent to the Directorate on a monthly basis in the prescribed format. 4- Sections 52(1), 52(2) and Rule 109-A (1), (2), (3), (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Act clearly state that orders issued in cases falling under sub-section (2) of Section 52 will be implemented by the Consolidation Officers appointed by the District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation under sub-section (2) of Section 42. This clearly indicates that the Consolidation Officers have no jurisdiction to comply with the provisions of Rule 109-A (1), (2), (3), or (4) to issue the Consolidation Warrant on the basis of orders passed by the Consolidation Courts before the completion of the Consolidation process, or whose execution is recorded in the Consolidation records, or certified copies of orders dated prior to the publication of Section 52(1) are brought. Therefore, in such cases, it is not legal to register and decide the orders passed before the completion of consolidation proceedings under Section 52(1) in the courts of Consolidation Officers such as Assistant Consolidation Officer, Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director Consolidation within the jurisdiction of Rule 109(a). In order to strictly implement the above legal provisions, when the Settlement Officer is signing the final consolidation records CH 41, 45 and the related land maps under the provisions of Section 52(1) of the Consolidation Act, he should first ensure that all the orders passed in the consolidation courts of the district before the date of his signature are implemented in the final records and a list of the same should be attached to CH 45 on the prescribed format. In the above circumstances, if any case, any order or decree that was not executed before the publication of Section 52(1) of the Consolidation Act, is not recorded in the revenue records, the Collector and his subordinate officers have the right to do so in accordance with the provisions of Section 27(3) of the Consolidation Act, Sections 28 and 33 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 2001, and now the necessary provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. In conclusion, the Consolidation Courts do not have the authority to file a case under Rule 109A for any order or decree executed in the village before the publication of Section 52(1). Yours sincerely, Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh. Number and date above. Copy forwarded to:- For information and necessary action. 1. Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Board, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. 2. All District Magistrates/District Deputy Directors of Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh. 3. All Officers, Headquarters. (Punit Shukla) Deputy Director of Consolidation, For the Commissioner.