ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Moradabad dated 17th July, 1973 in revision No. 862/71-72 under Section 48 of U. P. C. H. Act between Abdur Rahim and Abdul Karim. 2. In the basic year the disputed plots Nos. 212 and 545 were recorded in the name of Abdur Rahim petitioner. One Abdul Karim filed an objection that the property did not belong to the present petitioner Abdur Rahim and he himself claimed right therein. Alternatively he suggested that the land should be treated as the property of Goan Sabha. 3. The Consolidation Officer through his judgment dated 11th May, 1972 came to the conclusion that the name of the petitioner Abdur Rahim should continue over plot No. 545 and held that the petitioner Abdur Rahim would be owner of certain trees standing on the aforesaid plot, and he also held that certain trees would belong to Abdul Karim. Aggrieved by the decision of the Consolidation Officer both the parties preferred appeals and the appellate authority through its judgment dated 24th July, 1972 allowed the appeal filed by Abdul Karim and dismissed the appeal filed by Abdur Rahim, and the appellate authority came to a definite conclusion that plot no. 545 did not belong to Abdur Rahim and it had vested in the Gaon Sabha. It had also come to the conclusion that the petitioner Abdur Rahim had failed to establish his claim with regard to plot no. 212 as the aforesaid plot was in the name of public pathway. Thereafter the petitioner Abdur Rahim filed a revision petition which was partly allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that none of the parties would get ownership of the trees, rather the property would vest in the Gaon Sabha. Aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that in the basic year the petitioner was recorded hence his claim should be accepted. Aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that in the basic year the petitioner was recorded hence his claim should be accepted. Secondly he has contended that the petitioner had bhumidhari sanad in his favour which was not cancelled by a proper authority and on that basis the petitioner would acquire bhumidhari right in the disputed land, and the same has been erroneously negatived by the consolidation authorities. 5. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha has tried to refute the contentious raised on behalf of the petitioner. According to him the possession of the petitioner started over the disputed land from 1372-F. 6. However, I have gone through the judgments attached to the writ petition. I do not find that the petitioner has been recorded in possession for more than statutory period at any point of time. The petitioner has failed to satisfy me that he acquired sirdari right in the disputed plots at any point of time. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a ruling of this Court reported in 1970 RD 103 : (1970 AD LJ 242) Sheo Charan v. Tota Ram. In para. 13 of the aforesaid ruling it has been observed as below (at p. 243 of AD LJ): ".....The obvious intention of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder was that the certificate would be treated as at least prima facie evidence of the Bhumidhari rights of the holder. Rights declared by it cannot be defeated unless and until it is either duly cancelled or could be shown to be no certificate at all in the eye of law. One can conceive of circumstances in which the certificate may be void or no certificate in the eye of law, but where a specific procedure such as the one mentioned above, is laid down for cancellation of a certificate, I do not find it possible to hold that the effect of the Bhumidhari Sanad could be ignored." 8. In the present case on the finding recorded by the consolidation authorities it is evident that the petitioner has not been in possession over the disputed land for more than statutory period, hence he tailed to acquire sirdari right in the disputed land. In the present case on the finding recorded by the consolidation authorities it is evident that the petitioner has not been in possession over the disputed land for more than statutory period, hence he tailed to acquire sirdari right in the disputed land. Even if be is possessed of bhumidhari sanad it is no certificate in the eye of law and it is well-known that unless one is Sirdar of the land in respect of which he had applied for bhumidhari sanad he could not acquire bhumidhari sanad in the eye of law. 9. In this connection it is necessary to cite another ruling of this Court reported in 1966 RD 416 : (1966 All LJ 950) Ramayan Singh v. Balbhadra Chaubey wherein it has been emphasised as below (at pp. 952, 953 of All LJ):- "The grant of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, or the issue of the bhumidhari sanad, does not finally and conclusively determine the rights of the person granted the declaration or the bhumidhari sanad. The grant of the declaration under Section 6 does not determine the right and title of the person, nor is such declaration final and conclusive in the sense that his right or title cannot be challenged before the courts of law." There is another ruling of this Court reported in 1975 RD 76 : (1973 AD LJ 375) Subhaua v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. In para 7 of the judgment it has been laid down as below: - r "We agree with the learned single Judge that no hereditary tenancy rights accrued to the appellant and that no Bhumidhari rights could be claimed on the basis of the mere possession of the Sanad. These two points need not detain us any longer." 10. In the present case I am of the view that on the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities the petitioner has utterly failed to prove his sirdari right in the disputed plots at any point of time. Mere possession of Bhumidhari sanad would not prove his claim nor he can be held bhumidhar of the disputed plots. It is the duty of the consolidation authorities to keep correct record. Mere possession of Bhumidhari sanad would not prove his claim nor he can be held bhumidhar of the disputed plots. It is the duty of the consolidation authorities to keep correct record. If in the opinion of the consolidation authorities neither the petitioner nor the objector Abdul Karim had any right in the disputed plots the net result arrived at by the consolidation authorities that the plots vest in the Gaon Sabha, cannot be said to be either perverse or without any basis in evidence. 11. It is well known that when nobody is a tenure-holder of a piece of land the property belongs to Gaon Sabha or the State of U. P. In such circumstances the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities do not suffer from any mistake of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. 12. For the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed, but I make no order as to costs.