JUDGMENT M.P. Singh 1. The power to decide the validity of a lease deed executed by Land Management Committee always rests with the Additional Collector. The consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same. 2. In brief the facts are that the Land Management Committee executed a lease deed in favour of Dewa Ram, father of contesting respondent no. 2, on 16-4-1966. The possession of the land in dispute was also delivered to him. After the death of Dewa Ram, his son respondent no. 2 came in possession and still continues. The plots are :- Old number New number 1366 1077 1367 1064 1368 1367 After the notification under section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was published in the official Gazette, C. H. Form no. 5 was issued in which the possession of the petitioner mill was shown The petitioner filed an objection under section 9-A of the Act claiming Sirdari rights on the basis of the possession. 3. Dewa Ram, father of respondent no. 2, also filed objections claiming sirdari rights on the basis of the lease deed executed by the Land Management Committee on 16-4-1966. 4. A large number of other objections were also filed but they are no more relevant. The only contest now is between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 19-4-1969 allowed the objections of the petitioner giving the benefit of section 7 (aa) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951). The remaining objections were rejected, including that of Dewa Ram. While doing so the Consolidation Officer recorded a clear finding that the lease deed executed in favour of Dewa Ram was collusive and illegal. The possession of Dewa Ram was also disbelieved. The effect of the order of the Consolidation Officer was that the lease deed executed in favour of Dewa Ram was deemed to have been cancelled. 5. Against the said order Dewa Ram filed an appeal which was dismissed on 25-11-1969. This order was challenged by him in revision. It was dismissed on 9-9-1970 for non-compliance of Rule 111 of the Rules framed under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 6. Dewa Ram challenged the said order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of Civil Misc. Against the said order Dewa Ram filed an appeal which was dismissed on 25-11-1969. This order was challenged by him in revision. It was dismissed on 9-9-1970 for non-compliance of Rule 111 of the Rules framed under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 6. Dewa Ram challenged the said order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6165 of 1970 which was allowed by Mr. Justice N. D. Ojha, as he then was, on 1-11-1973 and the case was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for a fresh decision While doing so it was held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed manifest error of law in deciding the revision on a technical ground. When the entire record was before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, he had no jurisdiction to dismiss the revision on this technical ground. After remand, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision on 31-3-1975 filed by Dewa Ram, father of respondent no. 2. Against that order the present writ petition has been filed. 7. It will be relevant to point out here that initially proceedings were initiated under section 198 (2) of U. P. Act 1 of 1951 for cancellation of the lease deed executed in favour of Dewa Ram. Notices were issued to him but subsequently they were withdrawn. Against this an appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut which was also dismissed. Thus the said lease deed in favour of Dewa Ram could not be cancelled till this date and is still a good lease deed. The final position as it emerges is that the land initially belonged to Gaon Sabha but in the year 1966 a lease deed had been executed by the Land Management Committee in favour of Dewa Ram who continued in possession and after his death, his son respondent no. 2 came in possession. This lease has not been cancelled as yet. 8. The case of the petitioner was based on the ground of possession only. Now the question is whether the petitioner can claim any right over the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha on the basis of the possession. In order to decide this question the judicial frame work of sections 209 and 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are to be examined. 9. Now the question is whether the petitioner can claim any right over the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha on the basis of the possession. In order to decide this question the judicial frame work of sections 209 and 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are to be examined. 9. In view of the recent amendment made in the provisions of sections 209 and 210 of U. P. Act 1 of 1951, even if the petitioner was in possession over the property belonging to the Gaon Sabha for 12 years or more, it will not acquire Sirdari rights over the land in dispute. 10. The U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1976 (U. P. Act No. 35 of 1976) came into force on 15-6-1976. Section 15 of the said Amending Act has brought a redical change in section 210 as follows :- "210. If a suit for eviction from any land u/Sec. 209 is not instituted by a bhumidhar, Sirdar or asami, or a decree for eviction obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for institution of such suit or the execution of such decree, as the case may be, the person taking or retaining possession shall- (a) where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar with transferable rights, become a bhumidhar with transferable rights of such land and the right, title and interest of an asami, if any, in such land shall be extinguished ; (b) where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights, become a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights and the right, title and interest of an asami, if any, in such land shall be extinguished ; (c) where the land forms part of the holding of an asami on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an asami of the holding from year to year." Section 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, as it stood before the said amendment, was as follows :- "210. Failure to file suit under section 209 or to execute decree obtained thereunder-If a suit is not brought under section 209 or a decree obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for the filing of the suit of the execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession shall- (i) where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar or sirdar become a sirdar thereof and the rights, title and interest of an asami, if any, on such land shall be extinguished ; (ii) where the land forms part of the holding of an asami on behalf of the Gaon Sabha become an asami thereof holding from year to year ; (iii) in any case to which the provisions of CI. (b) of section 209 apply, become a sirdar or asami holding from year to year as if he had been admitted to the possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha." 11. Section 210, as it stands, does not contain any such provision as was contained in Clause (iii) of section 210 of the principal Act. 12. The petitioner could have claimed a right under section 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act if the Amending Act No. 35 of 1976 had not come into force. It may be emphasized here that the opening words of section 15 of the Amending Act (U. P. Act 35 of 1976) are : " For section 210 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted, namely :-" Thus there is no controversy that this amendment was retrospective in nature. Coming to the question of possession, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has relied upon the interim order dated 11-12-1970 by means of which Dewa Ram was allowed to continue in possession. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was not a party in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6165 of 1970, decided by Mr. Justice N. D. Ojha, as he then was, on 1-11-1973, any interim order or any observation will not be binding on it. Legally this contention has, to be accepted as correct On the basis of this observation the D. D. C. recorded a finding of possession in favour of the respondent no. 2. 13. Justice N. D. Ojha, as he then was, on 1-11-1973, any interim order or any observation will not be binding on it. Legally this contention has, to be accepted as correct On the basis of this observation the D. D. C. recorded a finding of possession in favour of the respondent no. 2. 13. Even if this part of the observation made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is deleted, that will not improve the case of the petitioner inasmuch as any amount of evidence on the question of possession will not nullify the effect of section 15 of U. P. Act No. 35 of 1976. 14. In a Full Bench decision of this court reported in Similesh Kumar v. Gaon Sabha, Uskar, Ghazipur, 1977 AWC 259 , it has been held- "The Act creates a self-contained Code creating rights and indicating the manner of settlement of dispute. No other authority has jurisdiction to re-adjudicate matters covered thereby. The consolidation authorities have to recognise and respect the action of Land Management Committee or order of the Collector or Board of Revenue, if any. They cannot go behind them...... ............... The consolidation authorities did not have jurisdiction to decide the question of validity of the lease or allotment." This court while considering the effect of the amendment in section 210 by means of U. P. Act No. 35 of 1976 has held in the case reported in Bhurey v. Board of Revenue, U. P., 1984 AWC 561 , as under : "According to the amendment provisions of sections 209 and 210 of UP ZA and LR Act, any trespasser cannot acquire sirdari rights in the land belonging to Gaon Sabha. The amendment has been given retrospective effect which means that a trespasser from July, 1952 cannot acquire sirdari rights in the property belonging to Gaon Sabha." 15. The amendment has been given retrospective effect which means that a trespasser from July, 1952 cannot acquire sirdari rights in the property belonging to Gaon Sabha." 15. The same view has been taken in another case reported in C, wherein it has been held- "In view of the recent amendment made in the provisions of sections 209 and 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act even if the petitioner is in possession over the property of Gaon Sabha for 12 years he would not acquire sirdari rights in the disputed land.....................In the present case even if the petitioner succeeds in proving that he was in continuous possession for more than 12 years over the disputed land he would not acquire sirdari right in view of the recent amendment with retrospective effect." 16. I am in respectful agreement with the views taken in these two cases. Thus in the instant case so long as the lease deed dated 16-4-1966 is not set aside or cancelled by the Additional Collector under section 198 (4) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the petitioner cannot claim any right by virtue of section 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act after the Amending Act no. 35 of 1976 which came into operation with retrospective effect. Even if the lease deed of respondent no. 2 is cancelled by the competent authority, the petitioner cannot get sirdari rights as in that case the property will again vest in the Gaon Sabha. 17. No other point was pressed. 18. In my opinion the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record or any other illegality. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.