JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - This writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The dispute relates to plot No. 515/2 with an area of 2.88. The petitioners were recorded in the basic year over this land. An objection was filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha on the allegation that the land was a Pokhari covered with water and was of public utility, that it had vested in the Gaon Sabha and the names of the petitioners were wrongly recorded. The claim of the Gaon Sabha was contested by the petitioners on the ground that the land in dispute had been let out to them by the then Zamindar and in pursuance of the lease they had been in possession by cultivating it. The Consolidation Officer accepted the case of the petitioners and dismissed the objection filed by the Gaon Sabha. On appeal the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) found that the land was a Pokhari covered with water and was of public utility and as such the lease granted in favour of the petitioners which was dated March 27, 1948 that is after August 8, 1946 was invalid. Moreover, the petitioners had by a registered deed dated Aug. 30, 1950 surrendered the land in dispute to the landholders. On these findings the appeal of the Gaon Sabha was expunged and the land in dispute was ordered to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha. The petitioners filed a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation which was dismissed. Aggrieved they have instituted the present writ petition with a prayer to quash the orders of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that on the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer that the petitioners had been in possession over the land in dispute since before the abolition of Zamindari they had acquired Sirdari rights under Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act inasmuch as the Gaon Sabha did not file any suit for their ejectment. Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act reads: "If a suit is not brought under Section 209 or a decree obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for the filing of the suit or the execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession shall- (i) where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar, or Sirdar, become a Sirdar thereof and the rights, title and interest of an Asami, if any, on such land shall be extinguished, (ii) where the land forms part of the holding of an Asami, on behalf of the Gaon Sabha becomes an Asami thereof holding from year to year, (iii) in any case to which the provisions of clause (b) of Section 209 apply, become a Sirdar or Asami holding from year to year as if he had been admitted to the possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha." 3. On the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the land was a Pokhari covered with water and was of public utility subclauses (i) and (ii) of Section 210 would not apply to the facts of the instant case, It is sub-clause (iii) which will be applicable. A plain reading of this sub-clause makes it clear that a person in occupation would become Sirdar of the land in his occupation provided there is no impediment under the Act in accrual of Sirdari rights. If there is such an impediment he will become only 'an Asami holding from year to year as if he had been admitted to the possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha.' In view of the nature of the land as pointed out by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation no Sirdari rights could accrue in favour of the petitioners because of Section 132(a) of the U.P, Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Consequently the petitioners by virtue of their possession could utmost; become an Asami holding from year to year. That they will become an Asami holding from year to year. That they will become an Asami is also clear from Section 133 (d) of the said Act. Consequently the petitioners by virtue of their possession could utmost; become an Asami holding from year to year. That they will become an Asami holding from year to year. That they will become an Asami is also clear from Section 133 (d) of the said Act. For the ejectment of such an Asami there is no limitation prescribed under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules and he could be ejected by the Gaon Sabha any time. This could be done even the consolidation authorities, see Indal v. Sheo Mohan, 1969 A-W.R. 837 D.B in this view of the matter the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be said to have committed any manifest error of law in passing the impugned orders. 4. It was then urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since they were recorded in 1366 F. as tenants of the land in dispute that entry was an entry of a recorded occupant and conferred Adhivasi rights upon the petitioners. From a perusal of 'he orders of the consolidation authorities it does not appear that this plea was raised before any of the authorities. It has not been stated in the writ petition either that this plea was raised before the Consolidation authorities and they did not decide it. An entry of 1366 F. if it is fictitious cannot confer any Adhivasi right. See Ram Das v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 675. Since this plea was never raised before the consolidation authorities the Gaon Sabha did not have any opportunity to produce any evidence, in regard to the genuine-ness of the entry. As such the plea cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in the writ petition. No other point has been pressed. 5. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.