ORDER Krishna Murari, J.—I have heard I. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to plot No. 1679M area 3-10-0 and plot No. 1677M area 10-0-0 situate in village Lacchmanpatti, Tehsil Gyanpur district Varanasi. The plots belong to Gaon Sabha which executed lease deed of different area of the said plots in favour of the petitioners in the year 1963. The Tehsildar made a report that lease executed in favour of the petitioner No. 1 by the Land Management Committee being against the provision of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder was invalid and liable to be cancelled. On the said report proceedings for cancellation were initiated against the petitioner No. 1 and he was put to notice. He contested the proceedings and filed objections. The Assistant Collector, First Class vide order dated 13.10.1969, held that lease was executed in accordance with the provision of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder and was valid. The said order was not challenged and became final. With respect to other petitioners, no such proceedings for cancellation were ever initiated. The village where the land is situated, was notified for consolidation operations under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In the basic year, the plots in dispute were recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The petitioners filed objection under Section 9 of the Act claiming rights on the basis of the lease deed in their favour. The Consolidation Officer vide judgment and order dated 8.10.1966 rejected the objection on the ground that procedure prescribed for grant of lease was not followed as such the same are invalid and confer no right upon the petitioners. The said judgment of the Consolidation Officer was affirmed in appeal by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation also met the same fate. 3. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to go into the validity of the lease deed and the orders passed, rejecting their claim holding the lease deed in their favour to be invalid, are illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. 3. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to go into the validity of the lease deed and the orders passed, rejecting their claim holding the lease deed in their favour to be invalid, are illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. The question about the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to go into the validity of the lease deed executed by Gaon Sabha has been subject-matter of consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Similesh Kumar v. Gaon Sabha, Uskar, Ghazipur and others, 1977 RD 408 (FB). The Full Bench held that consolidation authorities do not have jurisdiction to decide the question of validity of lease or allotment made by the Gaon Sabha and they cannot go beyond the same. The facts of the case being identical to the facts of case of Similesh Kumar (supra), the law declared by the Full Bench is applicable with full force. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is noteworthy that the dispute started in 1967 and has remained pending for about thirty seven years and no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter back. The claim of the petitioners based on the lease deed was rejected by the consolidation authorities only on the ground that the same was not valid and legal for which they had no jurisdiction. The lease executed by Gaon Sabha in favour of the petitioners has never been cancelled by any competent authority and thus is a valid lease. 5. In this view of the matter, the writ petition stands allowed. The judgment and order dated 13.8.1976, 22.8.1968 and 8.2.1967, passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed. The objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act stands allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the consolidation authorities to correct the record and enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records accordingly on the basis of the lease deed in their favour. 6. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.