JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - The orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. It seems that in respect of 762/2, Ram Sewak and others claimed Sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession. It was also stated that it was Gaon Sabha property. The case Was contested before the Consolidation Officer before whom evidence was tendered by the petitioners who also filed a copy of the order of Tahsildar in which they were shown to be in possession from 1351 F. The objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. The matter came in appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation who in exercise of powers under Section 11C of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act not only allowed the appeal but ordered that more plots may be entered as Gaon Sabha property. The petitioners filed a revision application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation upheld the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and held that the order passed by the Tehsildar was without jurisdiction and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had jurisdiction to include those plots while deciding the appeal. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also held that as the entries in favour of the petitioners start from 13 74F, as such it could not be said that they were in possession before Abolit'on of Zamindari. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also observed that in view of the amendments in Sections 209 and 210 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act no rights accrued against the Gaon Sabha. The dispute before the Consolidation Officer was in respect of one plot. If the Settlement Officer, Consolidation ordered to give more plots to Gaon Sabha he should have given an opportunity to the petitioners to tender evidence in respect of the same and the matter was to be sent back to the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also did not notice this mistake. If the Settlement Officer, Consolidation ordered to give more plots to Gaon Sabha he should have given an opportunity to the petitioners to tender evidence in respect of the same and the matter was to be sent back to the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also did not notice this mistake. It is true that no rights on the basis of adverse possession could accrue against the Gaon Sabha property, but the question was to be decided on the basis of oral and documentary evidence/and whether the disputed land could be said to be land within the meaning 0f U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or that the petitioners were in possession over more land from before Abolition of Zamindari or they entered into possession subsequently. As opportunity to tender evidence was denied to the petitioners after inclusion of other plots and oral evidence has not been considered by S.O.C. and D.D.C. the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities cannot be sustained. 2. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 111170 (Annexure 4) passed by the Consolidation Officer, the order dated 12276 (Annexure 5) passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the order dated 22179 (Annexure 6) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are quashed and the matter is sent back to the Consolidation Officer to hear and decide the same in respect of all the plots as a disputed case between the parties after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. [Petition allowed]