JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - The dispute relates to plot No. 21 of village Bajpai Khera-measuring 8 bigha 5 biswas and 10 biswansis. This plot was entered in the basic year khatauni as Banjar. The Petitioner preferred an objection before the Consolidation Authorities claiming that he was in adverse possession over an area of 5 bigha 13 biswas and 18 biswansis situate in the eastern portion and that his trees also stood over that portion. His case was that he had acquired bhumidhari rights and in the alternative, sirdari rights over the said plot. Opposite party No. 5 namely R.R.B.N. Inter College, filed a claim contending that the Institution was the owner of the land in question. So far as the land on which the institution's buildings and play ground were situated, the Petitioner did not contest the same. The dispute remained only about the rest of the land. As regards the said remainder, an alleged compromise was filed before the Consolidation Officer which was signed by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and by the Petitioner. In this compromise application dated 20-5-72 it is recited that on 21-9-71 the Gaon Sabha had passed a resolution to the effect that the land in question should be allowed to be recorded in the name of the Petitioner and that Gaon Sabha had no objection to it. In para 11 of this application it was mentioned that the Petitioner had been in adverse possession over the said area for a long time and that his trees also stood on that land. Thus, the basis of the compromise was the alleged adverse possession of the Petitioner for a long period and his being allegedly the owner of the trees thereon. The compromise was filed without obtaining prior permission of the Sub-Divisional Officer, but according to the Petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer's permission was obtained on 11-7-72. The Consolidation Officer rejected the compromise petition on the ground that it has been filed even before the permission had been obtained. On merits he found that his local inspection revealed that the disputed land, which was 4 bighas 15 biswas and 10 biswansis in area, had fifteen Neem trees, one Peepal tree, two Mahua trees, and one banyan tree which were stated to be about sixty years old. A rasta for Bhagwant Nagar town also ran through this plot. On merits he found that his local inspection revealed that the disputed land, which was 4 bighas 15 biswas and 10 biswansis in area, had fifteen Neem trees, one Peepal tree, two Mahua trees, and one banyan tree which were stated to be about sixty years old. A rasta for Bhagwant Nagar town also ran through this plot. The trees were scattered and there was no Khai, so that the land could be treated to be a grove. Thus on merits he found no substance in the Petitioner's claim and it was rejected. The Petitioner preferred an appeal, and before the appellate court, a compromise dated 22-9-72 in like terms was filed on the basis of the alleged permission of the. Sub-Divisional Officer referred to above. The Settlement Officer's Order has not been filed, but it is not disputed that the Settlement Officer also did not accept the compromise and he upheld the Order of the Consolidation Officer. The Dy. Director also affirmed the decision of the two courts below. Aggrieved thereby the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petition has been contested on behalf of Gaon Sabha. According to Gaon Sabha there was no record available of any permission having been actually granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It has also been asserted that the Petitioner had no title whatsoever. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. It is unnecessary to go into the question as to whether the Sub-Divisional Officer had in fact granted permission to the Gaon Sabha or not. For the legislature has by an amendment made through U.P. Act No. 34 of 1974 added Section 11-C to the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This section directs that in the course of hearing of any objection or appeal or revision under the Act, the Consolidation authorities may direct that any land which vests in the State Government or the Gaon Sabha may be recorded in its name even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by the government or the Gaon Sabha. Thus even though the Gaon Sabha may have chosen not to contest the case of the Petitioner it was legally open to the consolidation authorities to protect the interest of the Gaon Sabha and of the State. Thus even though the Gaon Sabha may have chosen not to contest the case of the Petitioner it was legally open to the consolidation authorities to protect the interest of the Gaon Sabha and of the State. The effect of the abolition of zamindari by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 is to vest all Ban jar lands in the State Government. Such lands were thereafter vested in the Maharaj Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1976 SC 2602 . It was thus not open to the Gaon Sabha to divest itself of any land merely at will. It was for this reason that a check was placed on the powers of the Gaon Sabha, namely, that it could file a compromise only with the permission of the Sub-Divisional Officer. But even a Sub-Divisional Officer cannot, without any good ground, allow any property vested in the State to go away to any private individual. In the instant case we may assume that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Gaon Sabha acted bonafide in the belief that the Petitioner has perfected his rights on the basis of long possession, but this view of theirs was rendered erroneous on account of the retrospective amendment of the law by the legislature. u/s 210 of the U.P. Act. No. 1 of 1951 adverse rights can be acquired only in respect of a holding of a Bhumidhar and not against land held as Banjar by Gaon Sabha. It is only in case a Gaon Sabha land is held by an Asami thai rights as Asami can be acquired. That is not the position here. The Petitioner's case, as mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition and as mentioned in the two compromise applications (Annexures 1 and 3), was solely based on adverse possession against Gaon Sabha. In para 12 of the petition, reference has been made to the inspection memo recorded by the Consolidation Officer, but the correctness of the inspection memo or of the observations made by the Consolidation Officer has not been challenged. We must therefore accept the observations made by the Consolidation Officer made on the basis of the local inspection to be correct. Thus the plot or a portion of the plot in question did not have the character of a grove. Admittedly it was not part of a holding or cultivatory land. We must therefore accept the observations made by the Consolidation Officer made on the basis of the local inspection to be correct. Thus the plot or a portion of the plot in question did not have the character of a grove. Admittedly it was not part of a holding or cultivatory land. It could thus only be Banjar land as recorded in the Khatauni. The Petitioner had thus no case at all on the facts pleaded by him. There is thus no ground to interfere with the impugned decisions. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed, but no order is made as to costs.