ORDER K.N. Misra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 8th Sept, 1983 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted three chaks as against his original holding. Subsequently, it appears that petitioner moved an application under S. 42-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), urging that the land of Gaon Sabha of plot No. 435 be allotted in his chak. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 23-6-1971, passed an order under S. 42-A of the Act, allotting land of the aforesaid plot to the petitioner. Admittedly this land belongs to Gaon Sabha. It appears that an appeal was filed against the said order passed by the Consolidation Officer, by the Gaon Sabha. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation refused to accept the appeal, vide order dated 7-11-1973 on the ground that a revision had also been filed against that order. The R. Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 23-4-1974, allowed the, revision and remanded the case to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for decision on merits. It appears that the said appeal was dismissed on 6-10-1978 as not pressed apparently because Gaon Sabha had already filed a revision on 27-6-1974 against the order dated 23-6-1971 seeking benefit of S. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for the condonation of delay in filing revision. This revision was heard and allowed by the impugned order dated 8-9-1983 condoning the delay in filing the revision by the Joint Director of Consolidation and he, after hearing the parties at some length, allowed the revision and quashed the order dated 23-6-1971 holding that the Consolidation Officer could not pass such an order under S. 42-A of the Act. The petitioner has now challenged this order through the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Joint Director of Consolidation should not have condoned the delay on the facts and circumstances of the case. I am unable to agree with this contention. Proceedings before the consolidation authorities finally determined the right, title and interest of the parties in respect of the land in dispute. The Joint Director of Consolidation has also taken into consideration this aspect of the matter while condoning the delay. I am unable to agree with this contention. Proceedings before the consolidation authorities finally determined the right, title and interest of the parties in respect of the land in dispute. The Joint Director of Consolidation has also taken into consideration this aspect of the matter while condoning the delay. He has further observed that the order dated 23-6-1971 could not be passed by the Consolidation Officer in exercise of power under S. 42-A of the Act and the land which belonged to Gaon Sabha and was of public utility, could not be allotted to the petitioner by the Consolidation Officer. In this view of the matter I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation condoning the delay in filing the revision. 4. Learned Counsel next contended that the said plot No. 435 was allotted to the petitioner on the consent given by the Gaon Sabha, and, as such, the Gaon Sabha was estopped from challenging the said order by filing revision against it. I am unable to accept this contention as well. Learned counsel, during the course of arguments rightly conceded that the order dated 23-6-1971 could not be passed by the Consolidation Officer in exercise of powers under S. 42-A of the Act for making allotment of that land, and, therefore, when the proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction the alleged consent of the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha could not confer any jurisdiction on the Consolidation Officer to pass that order. Apart from it, it is not the case of the petitioner that the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha was authorised by the Land Management Committee of the Gaon Sabha to make such statement before the consolidation authorities, nor requisite sanction was obtained of the Sub-Divisional Officer for making that statement with regard to the allotment of land in question which belonged to the Gaon Sabha to the opposite party. That being so, the Gaon Sabha could not be said to be estopped from challenging the said order dated 23-6-1971 which is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. The learned counsel next contended that Gaon Sabha has accepted the compensation in respect of one `Peepal' tree which is situate on the land in dispute, and, as such, the Gaon Sabha was not entitled to challenge the order in revision. 5. The learned counsel next contended that Gaon Sabha has accepted the compensation in respect of one `Peepal' tree which is situate on the land in dispute, and, as such, the Gaon Sabha was not entitled to challenge the order in revision. The alleged receipt filed by the petitioner is said to have been issued by the Pradhan, Gaon Sabha. It has not been brought on record that the Pradhan was authorised to accept the said compensation from the petitioner, and, as such, any receipt, if issued by Gaon Sabha Pradhan, will not operate as an estoppel against the Gaon Sabha. This receipt bears date of 10-1-1981 whereas the Gaon Sabha had already filed a revision on 27-6-1974 against the order dated 23-6-1971 by which the said land of the Gaon Sabha was allotted to the petitioner. That being so, I am unable to accept that the Pradhan was authorised to accept compensation on behalf of Gaon Sabha. In this view of the matter I do not find any substance in the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel. The land in dispute is of public utility which is also borne out from the spot inspection report of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation wherein it is mentioned that a Chabutra has been constructed on the land in question and there is a `Shivaling' of the deity and people worship it. The `Peepal' tree is also worshipped and red and white threads were found tied around it. This goes to indicate that the land in dispute is of public utility land and could not be allotted to the petitioner. The order dated 23-6-1971, as already stated above, was per se illegal and without jurisdiction and in my opinion it was rightly set aside by the Joint Director of Consolidation by the impugned order. 6. In a result the writ petition being devoid of merits, is accordingly, dismissed, in limine.