ORDER K.N. Misra, J. - Briefly stated, the facts of the present case, are as follows :- Sometimes in the year 1970 one Sheo Lal son of Soni had taken plot Nos. 427/2, 427/3, 443, 444 and 567 situate in village Sarhan Khurd, district Fatehpur on lease from Gaon Sabha. His name was d my mutated on the said plots on the basis of lease. Sheo Lal is said to have died in the year 1971. The petitioners' case is that he had left a widow named Smt. Ghasitiya who resides at her fathers place. He left no issue. The petitioners further claimed that since Smt. Ghasitiya had some long time back left Sheo Lal as he was a leper and disabled person, and, as such, after death of Sheo Lal the aforesaid plots, which he had acquired on lease from Gaon Sabha had devolved on them being his real brothers. The names of the petitioners were accordingly mutated in the year 1971 on the said plots. The village Sarhan Khurd was brought under consolidation operations in the year 1972, and, as such, in the basic year Khatauni the names of the petitioners were recorded as tenure holders over the aforesaid plot Nos. 427/2. etc. It has been averred in the writ petition that Shyam Lal, Shiv Raj, Shiv Lal son of Mangali, Chiranju, Sohan Lal, Ram Dhin and Shivram had filed objection under Section 9 A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) against the petitioners claiming that they were in possession over plot No. 427 and they have, thus, acquired Sirdari rights by adverse possession. No objection was, however. filed by any other persons or by the Gaon Sabha in respect of other aforesaid remaining plots. This objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 19-1-1973 on the basis of compromise filed by Shyam Lal and others in which they admitted the title and Possession of the petitioners over the said plot No. 427 about which they had filed objection. The petitioners were also allotted chak in respect of the entire aforesaid land in dispute and they claimed to be in possession over the same. 2. It has also been averred in the writ petition that besides the aforesaid plots No. 427/2 etc. The petitioners were also allotted chak in respect of the entire aforesaid land in dispute and they claimed to be in possession over the same. 2. It has also been averred in the writ petition that besides the aforesaid plots No. 427/2 etc. the petitioners are tenure holders of the land recorded in their names in the basic year Khatauni over Khata Nos. 205, 211, 41, 42, 105, 163, 166, 184 and 189 situate in village Sarhan Khuri. In respect of these land holdings petitioners were also allotted chak and they claimed to be in exclusive possession as sole tenure holder thereof. No objection was filed by any person in respect of said land either at the stage under Section 9-A or at the stage under Section 20 of the Act. 3. It appears that an application was moved by opposite parties Nos. 3 to 24 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation stating that plot Nos. 427/2,427/3,443,444 and 567, which were let out by the Gaon Sabha to Sheo Lal son of Souni should have reverted to Gaon Sabha after death of Sheo Lal as he had died issueless. These plots were wrongly got recorded by the petitioners in their names. It was prayed that the names of the petitioners be expunged from the revenue records and the Gaon Sabha should be recorded therein. Learned Settlement Officer, Consolidation made inquiries in the matter and found that Sheo Lal son of Souni was not the real brother of the petitioners nor he had left any widow named Smt. Ghasitiya. He also visited the village where Smt. Ghasitiya was residing and took her statement. She. in her statement. deposed that she is not the widow of Sheo Lal son of Souni, but she is widow of Ram Lal who was son of Sheo Balak and real brother of Sukh Lal and Pyare Lal. She further deposed that her husband Ram Lal was not nick named as Sheo Lai nor her father-in-law Sheo Balak was named also as Souni. It appears that Smt. Ghasitiya filed an objection on 15-4-73 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation wherein she asserted that she is entitled to ?rd share in the land of the aforesaid holding, namely Khata Nos. 205, 211, 41, 42, 105, 163, 166, 184 and 187 of village Sarhan Khurd. It appears that Smt. Ghasitiya filed an objection on 15-4-73 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation wherein she asserted that she is entitled to ?rd share in the land of the aforesaid holding, namely Khata Nos. 205, 211, 41, 42, 105, 163, 166, 184 and 187 of village Sarhan Khurd. She asserted that the land of these holdings initially belonged to Sheo Balak and that her husband had pre- deceased his father Sheo Balak 10-20 years ago and that her father-in-law Sheo Balak had died some 8 years ago. The learned Settlement Officer. Consolidation after taking statement of Smt. Ghasitiya and after making inquiry in the matter, submitted his report dated 1-5-1973 under Section 48(3) of the Act to the Deputy Director of Consolidation with the recommendation that the order dated 19-1-1973, which was passed in suit No. 534 Sheo Balak v. Sukh Lal decided by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of alleged compromise between the parties be set aside and the case in respect of aforesaid land which was leased out to Sheo Lal by the Gaon Sabha be decided on merits. He has also framed the necessary issues which he has referred in his reference report dated 1-5-1973. The learned Settlement Officer. Consolidation also recommended that the delay in filing the objection dated 15-4-1973 filed by Smt. Ghasitiya before him be condoned and her claim with regard to ?rd share in the aforesaid land holding Khata No. 205 etc. be decided on merits, after framing the relevant 5 issues which he had mentioned in his aforesaid reference report. This reference report has been accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 16-7-1973. He has set aside the order dated 19-1-1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 534 which was in respect of plot No. 427 and agreeing with the reference report in toto, he made it part of his order meaning thereby that he directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the case on merits in respect of plot Nos. 427/2, 427/3, 443, 444 and 567 which were recorded in the name of Sheo Lal on the basis of lease granted by the Gaon Sabha in his name and that the case be decided on merits also in respect of land of Khata Nos. 427/2, 427/3, 443, 444 and 567 which were recorded in the name of Sheo Lal on the basis of lease granted by the Gaon Sabha in his name and that the case be decided on merits also in respect of land of Khata Nos. 205, 211, 41, 42, 105, 163, 166, 184 and 189 regarding the claim of Smt. Ghasitia after condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This order has been challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Satya Prakash at some length and I have also heard Sri K.B. Garg, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. I have carefully perused the reference report and also the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been challenged in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in accepting the reference report which was not based on correct facts and the learned Settlement Officer, Consolidation has acted illegally and with material irregularity in entertaining the objection dated 15-4-1973 filed by Smt. Ghasitiya purporting it to be objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Act which could not be legally entertained by him nor the delay could be directed to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the said objection without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on that point. Learned counsel had further urged that the reference report is also incompetent inasmuch as learned Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not proceed to make inquiry in the matter on the basis of application filed by opposite parties Nos. 3 to 24 concerning the land which was earlier recorded in the name of Sheo Lal son of Souni. Learned counsel further urged that the statements recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of certain persons while making inquiry in the matter and also that of Smt. Ghasitiya could not be recorded by him behind the back of the petitioners. 3 to 24 concerning the land which was earlier recorded in the name of Sheo Lal son of Souni. Learned counsel further urged that the statements recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of certain persons while making inquiry in the matter and also that of Smt. Ghasitiya could not be recorded by him behind the back of the petitioners. Learned counsel further urged that one of the petitioner's son Pyare Lal had not given any statement to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, but he was made to put his thumb impressions on some papers at the behest of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation who had also rebuked him and had threatened him with dire consequences in case he will not affix his thumb impression. Learned counsel, thus, urged that whatever statement has been recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation while making inquiry in the matter and submitting reference report cannot be taken to be a valid piece of evidence nor the same could he relied in evidence. Learned counsel had, thus, urged that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation deserves to be set aside being it non-speaking order and the same also stands vitiated because the reference report could not form part of his order which itself was based on inadmissible evidence recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 6. In reply learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha urged that in accordance with the provision of Section 11-C of the Act if it is found that the tenure-holder has died issueless and the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha, the same would be directed to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha. Learned counsel pointed out that in the present case Sheo Lal son of Souni was the tenure holder on the basis of lease granted by the Gaon Sabha. The petitioners had got their names mutated on the land belonging to Sheo Lal son of Souni who had died issueless. Learned counsel pointed out that the petitioners wrongly mentioned that Sheo Lal was also named as Ram Lal and that he was his real brother and that he had left a widow named Smt. Ghasitiya who resides with her father. Learned counsel, thus. Learned counsel pointed out that the petitioners wrongly mentioned that Sheo Lal was also named as Ram Lal and that he was his real brother and that he had left a widow named Smt. Ghasitiya who resides with her father. Learned counsel, thus. urged that in these circumstances the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had rightly proceeded to make inquiry in the matter and recorded the statement of Smt. Ghasitiya who had deposed that she is widow of Ram Lal who was son of Sheo Balak and that she is not the widow of Sheo Lal son of Souni, She had further deposed that her husband Ram Lal was not named as Sheo Lal In these circumstances a prima facie case was made out for interference and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had rightly directed that the order dated 19-1-1973 which was passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of compromise between the petitioner and the claimants in respect of plot No. 427 deserved to be set aside and the case in respect of plot belonging to Sheo Lal son of Soni deserves to be decided on merits. Learned counsel, thus, urged that the issues which have been referred in the reference report are very material issues and the Settlement Officer. Consolidation has rightly made a reference to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Learned counsel could not point out any other provision under the Act which could enable the Settlement Officer. Consolidation to entertain the objection dated 15-4-1973 filed by Smt. Ghasitiya under Section 9-A(2) of the Act excepting Section 44-A which provides that where powers are to be exercised or duties to be performed by any authority under this Act or the Rules framed thereunder, such powers or duties may also be exercised or performed by an authority superior to it. Learned counsel, thus, contended that in view of Section 44-A the Settlement Officer, Consolidation could entertain the objection filed by Smt. Ghasitiya under Section 9-A(2) of the Act and the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has not erred in accepting the report in respect of the objection filed by Smt. Ghasitiya pertaining to the land of Khata No. 205 etc. referred to above. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. So far as the land which was recorded in the name of Sheo Lal son of Souni namely, plot No. 427/2 etc. referred to above. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. So far as the land which was recorded in the name of Sheo Lal son of Souni namely, plot No. 427/2 etc. is concerned the crucial question involved in respect of this land is whether Sheo Lal son of Souni was the real brother of the petitioners or not and also whether Smt. Ghasitiya was the widow of Sheo Lal son of Souni or not? The Settlement Officer. Consolidation has mentioned relevant issues to be framed in respect of it. If Sheo Lal son of Souni was not the real brother of the petitioners the land which was leased out by the Gaon Sabha could not devolve on them and the revenue records deserved to be corrected in respect thereof. In that view of the matter I do not find any error has been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in accepting the reference report so far as the report relates to land which was recorded earlier in the name of Sheo Lal son of Souni, namely, plots Nos. 427/2,427/3,443,444 and 567, and also in setting aside the order dated 19-1-1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer which was in respect of plot No. 427, initially recorded in the name of Sheo Lal son of Souni on the basis of lease granted by the Gaon Sabha. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has accepted the report of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and it has been made to form part of his order. No exception can be taken to this order because when generally he has agreed with the report of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the contents of the report were not required to be repeated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order. It would suffice if the Deputy Director of Consolidation had accepted the report and directed it to form part of his order. In this view of the matter I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner who had challenged the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the report passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not be made to form part of the final order passed under S. 48(3) of the Act by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. 8. Director of Consolidation. 8. But so far as the reference report relating to land of Khata No. 205 etc. is concerned, I find that the same cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. It is well settled that any person can file objection under S. 9-A or claim right, title and interest or share in respect of any holding recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the name of other tenure holder. This objection could be presented before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer could also entertain the objection in view of the provisions contained under S. 44-A which provides that where powers are to be exercised or duties to be performed by any authority under this Act or the rules framed thereunder, such powers or duties may also be exercised or performed by an authority superior to it. `The words an authority superior to it' in S. 44-A can very well be construed to give jurisdiction only to an authority superior to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, namely, the Consolidation Officer, to entertain an objection filed under S. 9-A of the Act and not to any other superior authority exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction under the Act, namely, the Settlement Officer Consolidation or the Deputy Director of Consolidation. If the intention of the legislature would have been to confer jurisdiction on any superior authority to exercise power or to perform duties under the Act, the words should have been "such powers can be exercised or duties to be performed by `any' authority superior to it be it an appellate or revisional authority superior to it. In this view of the matter the Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not entertain the objection dated 15-4-1973 filed by Smt. Ghaisitiya claiming ?rd share along with the petitioners in the holdings Khata No. 205 etc. nor he could make reference for condoning the delay in filing the objection and for deciding the objection on merits. The reference report in respect of Khata No. 205 etc. has also been accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which deserved to be quashed for the reasons aforesaid instead of being accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Smt. Ghasitiya could present her objection dated 15-4-1973 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer or before the Consolidation Officer along with an application seeking condonation of delay. has also been accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which deserved to be quashed for the reasons aforesaid instead of being accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Smt. Ghasitiya could present her objection dated 15-4-1973 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer or before the Consolidation Officer along with an application seeking condonation of delay. Her objection was, therefore, illegally entertained by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and it deserves to be returned back to her for presenting before the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer. if she may so like. If such objection would be presented by Smt. Ghasitiya, the petitioners would get an opportunity of opposing it and it would be open to the Consolidation Officer to decide whether delay in filing the objection be condoned or not after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on that point. If he finds that the delay deserves to be condoned. then after passing appropriate order with regard to condonation of delay. he would proceed to decide the case framing the necessary issues which may arise on the pleadings of the parties in respect of the land of aforesaid holding Khata No. 205 etc. The reference report as well as the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of the aforesaid Khata No. 205 etc. on the basis of objection dated 15-4-1973 cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. 9. Learned counsel had strenuously contended that whatever evidence has been recorded by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation while making inquiry in the matter relating to the land which was recorded in the name of Sheo Lal son of Souni or in respect of Khata No. 205 etc. the same cannot be taken to be a piece of evidence against the petitioners in the present proceedings. Learned counsel had contended that the statement of witnesses were recorded behind their back and he had further contended that the petitioner's son had not given any statement to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, but he was made to put his thumb impressions on some papers at the behest of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 10. So far as this argument is concerned it would suffice to say that any statement recorded by the Settlement Officer. 10. So far as this argument is concerned it would suffice to say that any statement recorded by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation while making inquiry in the matter cannot be taken to be a statement referable in judicial proceedings relating to aforesaid so far as the petitioners are concerned because the statement cannot be taken to have been recorded in the reference proceedings after giving opportunity to the petitioners of hearing in the matter or to cross-examine the witness. Statement recorded by an Officer in an inquiry cannot be taken to be a binding statement on the parties in a judicial proceeding unless the Officer proceeds to record the statement of witnesses in presence of the parties after affording them due opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. Thus, whatever statements were recorded by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation in the inquiry made by him would not be relevant and the Consolidation Officer would proceed to decide the case in respect of plot No. 427/2 etc. after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties and after taking evidence of the parties afresh. The Consolidation Officer will proceed to decide the case after giving due notice to the Gaon Sabha as well. If the objection is filed by Smt. Ghasitiya which is directed to be returned to her for presentation before the Assistant Consolidation Officer or before the Consolidation Officer, or some fresh objection, the same would also he decided on merits in accordance with law un-influenced by the evidence taken by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation or by any observation made by him in his reference order. 11. In the result, the writ petition partly succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The reference order dated 1-5-1973 so far as it relates to land of Khata Nos. 205, 211, 41, 42, 105, 163, 100, 184 and 189 situate in village Sarhan Khurd, P.O. Makrandpur, Pargana Kora. District Fatehpur is hereby set aside and the impugned order dated 16-7-1973 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of the aforesaid holdings, which is passed on the report of the Settlement Officer. Consolidation is also quashed to that extent. The reference report dated 1-5-1973 and the order dated 16-7-1973 so far as it relates to plot Nos. District Fatehpur is hereby set aside and the impugned order dated 16-7-1973 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of the aforesaid holdings, which is passed on the report of the Settlement Officer. Consolidation is also quashed to that extent. The reference report dated 1-5-1973 and the order dated 16-7-1973 so far as it relates to plot Nos. 427/2, 427/3, 443, 444 and 567 in respect of which lease was granted to Sheo Lal son of Souni is hereby maintained and the Consolidation Officer will proceed to decide the case after framing necessary issues and after giving the opportunity to the parties of hearing in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above. 12. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.