JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - These petitions raise a question regarding the interpretation of rule 177 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules and para 79, sub-paragraph (7) of the U.P. Gaon Samaj Manual. The petitioners in the writ petitions nos. 3384 and 3387 of 1963 are the residents of village, Baraigarh in the district of Kanpur. They were allotted by the Land Management Committee of the village certain plots of land in accordance with rules and the Chairman of the Committee executed leases in their favour which were got registered. As the village was taken under consolidation operations the petitioners claimed before the Consolidation Officer on the basis of the registered leases in their favour that they had been in cultivatory possession of the plots and that they should be entered as Bhumidhars of the plots in whose name should be expunged from the records. 2. On behalf of the Gram Samaj the Lekhpal objected to the entry of the petitioners' name in respect of the plots on the ground that the lease "in their favour were illegal and invalid" and no rights could accrue to them on the basis of those leases. Evidence was led on behalf of the petitioners that on the basis of the registered leases they had been in possession of the land for the last three years and as the Patta was not attested by the Supervisor Qanungo, they got it registered. They also asserted before the Consolidation Officer that the Land Management Committee had passed a resolution on 25-4-1962 for not contesting the case in respect of the land conveyed under the leases. 3. The Consolidation Officer disposed of the claims of the petitioners by a common judgment dated 9-1-1963. He had that "there is a mandatory provision of law that patta having land revenue less than Rs. 100/- be got attested by the Supervisor Qanungo as laid down in para 79(7) of the U.P. Gram Samaj Manual .... Therefore the patta in question cannot be said lawfully correct and valid. He had that "there is a mandatory provision of law that patta having land revenue less than Rs. 100/- be got attested by the Supervisor Qanungo as laid down in para 79(7) of the U.P. Gram Samaj Manual .... Therefore the patta in question cannot be said lawfully correct and valid. I therefore find that no rights are accrued to the applicant on the basis of patta and therefore its mutation is refused and the application is rejected." He however directed to have their names entered in class 4 of Khatauni as trespassers of Gaon Samaj over some of the plots in which they were found to be in cultivatory possession on his spot enquiry. 4. The petitioners went up in appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Settlement Officer dismissed the appeals inter alia on the ground that the patta were invalid on account of their not having been verified by the Supreme Court Qanungo and also because in his opinion they were Farzi and fictitious and no rights accrued because of these pattas. In revision, the Director of Consolidation held that "even if the contention of the revisionists is accepted that the leases were valid and properly registered the learned counsel for the revisionists has not been able to explain away the requirements of rule 177 of the Z.A.L.R. Rules read with para 79(7) of the Gaon Samaj Manual.... The leases, therefore, cannot be said to be valid as they do not fulfil the requirements of para 79(7) of the Gaon Samaj Manual", and dismissed the revisions. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid orders. 5. It may be noted here that in Writ petition No. 3387 of 1963 no counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents traversing the allegations made in the petition. In writ petition No. 3384 of 1963 counter-affidavit has been filed by one Babu Singh alleging that the disputed plots had been given to him in Chak No. 287 and the deponent has taken possession in the month of June, 1963. 6. In writ petition No. 3384 of 1963 counter-affidavit has been filed by one Babu Singh alleging that the disputed plots had been given to him in Chak No. 287 and the deponent has taken possession in the month of June, 1963. 6. From the aforesaid narration of facts it is evident that the main ground on which the petitioners' claim has been rejected by the Consolidations Authorities was that as the lease under which they claimed a right had not been attested by any revenue court or revenue officer as enjoined under rule 177 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, read with para 79 sub-Section (7) of the Gram Samaj Manual they were invalid and could not confer any rights on the petitioners. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the view taken by the Consolidation Authorities that the Patta is invalid because although it has been registered, because although it has been registered, it has not been attested by the Supervisor Qanungo, is erroneous in law as rule 177 is only directory and not mandatory. Learned counsel has further argued that under Section 198 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the sub-Divisional Officer has a power to cancel a Patta executed by the Gram Samaj, but in the present case neither the S.D.O. has acted to cancel the same suo motu nor any application for cancellation has been filed before him on behalf of any member of the Gram Samaj. Therefore, it was the duty of the consolidation courts to have accepted the Patta. Learned counsel has argued that the orders of the consolidation authorities are vitiated by a patent error of law and must be quashed. I find force in these contentions. The relevant portion of rule 177 reads: "(1) A certificate of admission to land of which the annual revenue or rent exceeds Rs. 100 shall be made by registered instrument, in other cases the certificate may be attested by any revenue court or Revenue Officer not below the rank of a Supervisor Kanungo in accordance with rules 130 to 141." Rule 138 so far as it is relevant to the questions is controversy provides: "(1) All leases of land made under Section 157, annual rent of which exceeds Rs. 100, shall be executed by registered instrument. (2) Leases of land the rent of which is Rs. 100, shall be executed by registered instrument. (2) Leases of land the rent of which is Rs. 100 or less may be attested by any revenue court or a revenue officer not inferior in rank to a Supervisor Qanungo within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or some portion of the land to which such lease or counterpart relates, is situate." 8. A perusal of the aforesaid rules makes it obvious that the Legislature has made it compulsory for lease conveying land, the annual rent of which exceeds Rs. 100, to be made by a registered instrument. But in respect of leases whose rent is Rs. 100 or below Rs. 100, it has dispensed with the compulsory registration of the instrument and has provided that "it may be attested by any revenue court or a revenue officer...." It is obvious that the intention of the Legislature was that where the property was more valuable, its conveyance or lease must be by a registered document, but if the property was not so valuable the instrument could be valid even if it was not registered but attested by any revenue officer as provided under Rule 177. The Legislature, however, in my opinion, never intended that if a lease relating to a land, the annual revenue or rent of which did not exceed Rs. 100, was got registered, it would become invalid on that ground. It may be noted here that both in rule 138 as well as in rule 177 of the registration of an instrument of lease in respect of land yielding a rent of more than Rs. 100 has been made compulsory while the attestation of any such instrument in respect of land fetching a rent below Rs. 100 by any revenue court or revenue officer is optical. None of these rules says that an instrument which could have been valid, if attested by a revenue officer, would become invalid in the absence of such attestation, even if it was registered. The fact that the Legislature made it compulsory for the registration of instruments conveying more valuable property unmistakably point out that it attached a special sanctity to a registered document. The fact that the Legislature made it compulsory for the registration of instruments conveying more valuable property unmistakably point out that it attached a special sanctity to a registered document. In my opinion, the provision of such instruments being attested by revenue officers as provided under the aforesaid rule is only directory and not mandatory and their breach cannot entail any invalidity on that ground, in case of a document which has been properly executed and registered. 9. The relevant portion of paragraph 79 of the Gaon Samaj Manual reads: "(7) If the revenue or rent fixed for the land does not exceed Rs. 100 the certificate or counterpart shall be put up before Supervisor Qanungo..... and the Supervisor Qanungo shall attest it. This attestation should be done in any case within four months from the date on which the certificate was given. (8) If the revenue or rent of the land exceeds Rs. 100 the Land management Committee shall get the certificate registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar". 10. Here also it is obvious that when the land was more valuable it is incumbent on the Land Management Committee to get the certificate registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar and the registered document will not require attestation by the Supervisor Qanungo; but if the lands is of less value, then it is not necessary to get it registered, and mere attestation by the Supervisor Qanungo will meet the requirements of law. Therefore, it is obvious that if the instrument has been registered then its attestation by the Supervisor Qanungo is neither mandatory nor necessary even under this paragraph. 11. I am of opinion that the Consolidation Authorities have erred in law in holding that because the instruments of leases were not attested by the Supervisor Qanungo, though registered, they were invalid and could confer no right on the petitioners. 12. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in his order has observed that "the mere fact that they were got registered in the Registration Officer shows that the appellants wanted to avoid their scrutiny by the revenue authorities," and the Pattas were Farzi and fictitious. 12. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in his order has observed that "the mere fact that they were got registered in the Registration Officer shows that the appellants wanted to avoid their scrutiny by the revenue authorities," and the Pattas were Farzi and fictitious. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there was no evidence before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on the basis of which he could say that the lease were Farzi and fictitious and his finding on this score is based on his inference from the fact that the leases are registered and, as such, were wholly unwarranted in law. 13. The Consolidation Officer has held the Patta to be invalid only on the ground that it had not been attested by a revenue officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also has held them to be invalid on the same ground. None of these authorities has said anything about the Pattas being fraudulent or fictitious. In the circumstances, the finding of the Settlement Officer on this score appears to be based on his inference from the fact that the Patta was not put up before the revenue authorities and cannot, therefore, be sustained in law. 14. In the result, the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of the Consolidation Authorities are quashed. The cases are sent back to the Consolidation Officer for being decided on merits and in accordance with law. If there is any evidence on the record regarding the leases being fraudulent or fictitious, it will be open to the Consolidation Authorities to assess that evidence and reach their conclusion. 15. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.