ORDER K.N. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-1-1976 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda by which he has maintained the basic year entry in the name of Gaon Sabha and has set aside the order dated 6-9-1971 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by which the petitioner was ordered to be recorded Asami tenant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as below : The dispute in the present case relates to plot No. 7021 with an area of 1.57 acres situate in village Balrampur, Pargana and Tahsil Balrampur, District Gonda. This plot was recorded as Bunjar in the basic year khetauni and over an area of 40 acres the name of petitioner Ram Sewak was recorded in clause 5. Petitioner filed objection claiming to be Sirdar tenant of the land in dispute on the basis of the alleged deed dated 5-5-1952 granted by Balrampur Estate in his favour. The case of the petitioner is that this lease deed was executed by Assistant Manager of the Estate who had right to let out the land on behalf of Balrampur Estate and that it was registered before the revenue authority on 30th June, 1952. Petitioner further alleged that he is in possession over the land in dispute on the basis of the aforesaid lease. The Consolidation Officer decided the case by the order dated 25-1-1968 partly allowing the objection. Against that order appeal was filed by Nagar Palika Balrampur and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 30th July, 1969 for deciding the dispute afresh. After remand of the case, the Consolidation Officer made spot inspection and found that except some land measuring .40 acres, entire land was a Nala and water logged area. He, therefore, by the order dated 20-5-1971 partly allowed the objection of the petitioner directing that his name be recorded over an area of .40 acres of land of the plot in dispute namely, plot No. 7021 and that the remaining area should continue to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. 3. He, therefore, by the order dated 20-5-1971 partly allowed the objection of the petitioner directing that his name be recorded over an area of .40 acres of land of the plot in dispute namely, plot No. 7021 and that the remaining area should continue to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. 3. An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20-5-1971 passed by the Consolidation Officer wherein he has asserted that his name be ordered to be recorded over the entire plot No. 7021 on the basis of the aforesaid lease deed and possession over it. The Settlement Officer Consolidation recorded a finding that the lease was not validly executed and attested but in spite of this finding he directed the name of petitioner to be recorded as Asami tenant over the entire area of the said plot namely, plot No. 7021 on the basis of the said lease. Petitioner preferred revision against that order. His revision was heard and decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 15-1-1976. He recorded a finding that it had not been established that the alleged lease dated 12-5-1952 was executed by the person authorised by the Balrampur Estate. It was also held that the lease was not duly attested and on these findings the case which was set up by the petitioner claiming title in respect of the land in dispute on the basis of the said lease was rejected. It was further observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the land in dispute was Nala and water logged area, and, as such, no sirdari rights could accrue or be claimed in view of the provisions contained under S. 132- A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation further held that the Settlement Officer Consolidation after holding that the lease was not duly attested, erred in granting Asami rights in the said plot to the petitioner. And with these findings learned Deputy Director of Consolidation ordered that the name of petitioner be not recorded as Asami tenant in cl. 3 and the entry in the name of the petitioner as Asami tenant be expunged. Aggrieved by this order petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. And with these findings learned Deputy Director of Consolidation ordered that the name of petitioner be not recorded as Asami tenant in cl. 3 and the entry in the name of the petitioner as Asami tenant be expunged. Aggrieved by this order petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since no appeal or revision was filed by the Gaon Sabha or by the Nagar Palika Bairampur and as such, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by which latter had granted Assami rights to the petitioner. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of this court in Brij Lal v. State of U.P., 1976 Rev. Dec. 318 : 1975 All LJ 684 wherein Hon'ble O.P. Trivedi, J. observed that the amendment incorporating S. 11-C by the Amendment Act, 1974 in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, does not absolve the Gaon Sabha from filing an objection under S. 9 or an appeal under S. 11 or a revision under S. 48 in those cases in which its right or interest in land is disputed and the land is not recorded in the name of Gaon Sahha in the basic year. 5. As against this learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 Nagar Palika Balrampur, Sri Har Gun Charan placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this court in Amir Husain v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Moradabad, 1977 All WC 1, wherein it was held that the Consolidation authorities can validly direct the name of the Gaon Sabha or the State Government to be recorded when they find that there is no valid title holder and that under the law, the land had vested in the State Government and then in the Gaon Sabha, even though the Government or the Gaon Sahha has not filed an objection. 5. In this view of the above noted Full Bench Decision, I do not find any assistance can be drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner from the decision in Brijlal's case 1975 All LJ 684(supra). In Brijlal's case it was observed that the land in dispute was not recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha in the basic year. In this view of the above noted Full Bench Decision, I do not find any assistance can be drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner from the decision in Brijlal's case 1975 All LJ 684(supra). In Brijlal's case it was observed that the land in dispute was not recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha in the basic year. In the present case, however, the land in dispute was recorded Bunjar belonging to the Gaon Sabha and, as such, in view of the Full Bench decision in Amir Husain's case (supra) I find that the Deputy Director of Consolidation could pass the impugned order directing that the land in dispute be continued to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha by setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by which the petitioner's name was ordered to be recorded as Asami tenant. The land in dispute was Nala and water-logged area, and, as such, no Sirdari rights could be claimed in such a land. Petitioner has based his title on the basis of the alleged lease dated 12-5-1952. A finding has been recorded to the effect that the lease has not been proved to have been executed by authorised person on behalf of Balrampur Estate nor it was duly registered, and, as such, the petitioner could not be granted any right on the basis of the lease. Thus the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was per se wrong, and petitioner was not a valid title holder. The land in dispute belonged to the Gaon Sabha and vested in Nagarpalika Balrampur. In this view of the matter I find that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed no error in setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by which Asami rights were granted to the petitioner on the basis of the alleged lease. When a revision was filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the subordinate authorities their judgment and orders came in jeopardy and the Deputy Director of Consolidation could, therefore. hear and decide the case on merits with regard to claim of parties in respect of the land in dispute. When a revision was filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the subordinate authorities their judgment and orders came in jeopardy and the Deputy Director of Consolidation could, therefore. hear and decide the case on merits with regard to claim of parties in respect of the land in dispute. Even if no revision was filed against the order passed-by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, I find that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of power under S. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act could pass an appropriate order setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was found to be illegal and wrong on merits and to uphold the claim of Gaon Sabha and Nagar Palika. Such power could be exercised under S. 11-C of the Act by the Consolidation authorities as held by the Full Bench in Amir Husain's case, 1977 All WC 1 (supra). I thus find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.