JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the order of the Consolidation Officer, Jalalabad rejecting the petitioner's objections under Sec. 12 (c) of the U. P. consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The facts of this case be stated within a very brief campass. The petitioners allege in their affidavit that their father was the proprietor and exclusive Khudkasht holder of certain plots. These were entered as plots in the possession of Nazir Husain in the Khatauni of 1356 Fasli as his Khudkasht of 1353F. The petitioners were minors when their father died (they were minors at the time of the filing of this petition). It is alleged that, after the demise of their father, a relation called Zahid Husain made an agreement with Balla Chand, respondent No. 4, for the sale of the plots in dispute for some consideration which was pocketed by him. According to the petitioners, he had no authority on their behalf to enter into this transaction. 2. As a result of certain proceedings under Sec. 8 of the aforesaid Act an order for the correction of the record in favour of Balla Chand was made. The petitioners filed an objection under Sec. 12 of the Act. The Assistant Consolidation Officer fixed 25th June 1955 for the hearing of the case before the Consolidation Officer. He sent, as required by Sec. 12 (2) a report to the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner's grievance is that he did not consult the Land Management Committee before preparing his report nor did he submit the views of that Committee to the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner's objections were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 18th July 1955. Their revision before the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar was also dis,missed by that Officer by his order dated 11th January 1956. Aggrieved by the rejection of their objections the petitioners have come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The petition is opposed by Balla Chand, respondent No. 4, who claims to be the vendee of the plots in dispute and also by the State. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of both. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M. H. Beg, argued a number of points against the legality of the proceedings adopted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of both. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M. H. Beg, argued a number of points against the legality of the proceedings adopted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer. It is not necessary for me to give a decision of all of them as I am of the view that this petition should succeed on one ground alone. 4. It is stated by the petitioners in their affidavit that the Assistant Consolidation Officer neither consulted the Land Management Committee before preparing his report under Sec. 12 (2) of the Act nor did he forward the views of the Committee to the Consolidation Officer. This is a breach of the mandatory provision of Sec. 12 as well as of rules made under that Act. [After quoting Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 12 and Rule 34 (1) His Lordship observed :] * * * 5. It is thus clear that the Assistant Consolidation Officer is required to consult the Land Management Committee before submitting his report to the Consolidation Officer. The reason behind this provision is obvious. The Land Management Committee is a statutory body constituted under Sec. 43 of the Act. It consists of persons who have local knowledge of the conditions and are in a better position to investigate disputed questions of fact than either the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer. The provision requiring consultations with the Committee therefore is an essential part of the procedure. It has not been complied with. The petitioners are therefore entitled to complain that their objection under Sec. 12 was decided by the Consolidation Officer without the benefit of the views of the Land Management Committee. 6. Mr. G.P. Khare on behalf of the respondents conceded that the provisions relating to procedure were mandatory but he vehemently argued that the petitioners had not been prejudiced by the failure to consult the Land Management Committee. He contended that Balla Chand respondent No. 4 had acquired right of an Adhivasi and was entitled to buy out the petitioners after payment of compensation to them. According to Balla Chand, his claim to be considered as an Adhivasi is absolutely "water tight" and no amount of consultation with the Land Management Committee could have dislodged it. In other words, even if that Committee had been consulted, the fate of the petitioner's objection would have been the same. According to Balla Chand, his claim to be considered as an Adhivasi is absolutely "water tight" and no amount of consultation with the Land Management Committee could have dislodged it. In other words, even if that Committee had been consulted, the fate of the petitioner's objection would have been the same. 7. I am afraid I cannot accept this argument. The petitioner's case is that the plots in dispute were sold by their relation to Balla Chand by a transaction which was made in 1953. Therefore, according to the case of the petitioners, Balla Chand could not have obtained possession of the plots before 1953 (1361 Fasli) and could never have become an Adhivasi. In view of these allegations, it is not possible for the respondent Balla Chand to contend that he had a "water tight" claim to be recorded as an Adhivasi of the plots in dispute. Mr. Khare wanted to prove before me that the allegations of the petitioners about the date of the transaction and of Balla Chand's coming into possession were palpably false. I am afraid I cannot go into these disputed questions in these proceedings. They are matters which should be decided by the appropriate authorities after due and proper consultation with the Land Management Committee. The petitioners are entitled to complain that the failure to consult that Committee has deprived them of the opportunity to have their case examined by an authority which had local knowledge of relevant facts. 8. I, therefore, hold that the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sec. 12 and Rule 34 vitiates the entire proceedings and the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer are contrary to law. 9. I allow this petition and quash the order of the Consolidation Officer, Jalalabad, district Muzaffarnagar dated 18th of July 1955 (Annexure F) of the petitioner's affidavit and the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar, dated 11th January 1956 (Annexure H of the petitioner's affidavit). 10. The, petitioners are entitled to their costs.