JUDGMENT Hon'ble B.S. Verma, J.- The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 06-02-1993 and 20-06-1996 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 1 respectively (Annexure No.4 and 5 to this writ petition) : 2. Brief facts of the case arc that the respondent no.3 had filed objection under Section 9A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, alleging his possession over the disputed land and thereby prayed for entry of his name in the revenue records on the basis of unregistered agreement for sale, which was denied by the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer, Kashipur vide order dated 14-9-1992 passed in Suit No. 641 dismissed the objections of the respondent no.3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the respondent no. 3 filed an appeal under Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation Nainital, which was allowed by the respondent no.2 vide judgment and order dated 6.2.1993. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation-respondent no.1, in which the disputed property has been held to be the State land and it was observed that the land in dispute shall vest in the State. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation gave a finding that the petitioner has no right to sell the disputed land and it is against the terms and conditions of the Patta sanctioned by the Government vide order dated 20-6-1996. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The main ground of challenge before this Court is that the petitioner had never executed an agreement for sale and never delivered the possession of the disputed land to respondent no.3 and the respondent no. 1 erred in assuming and accepting the transfer in favour of the respondent no.3, which is against the law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the power to cancel the lease is vested with the Collector under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has no right to determine the lease of the petitioner without any basis. 5. The contention of the petitioner has legal force. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the power to cancel the lease is vested with the Collector under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has no right to determine the lease of the petitioner without any basis. 5. The contention of the petitioner has legal force. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has no right to determine the lease of the petitioner and the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the revision of the petitioner on this ground alone. The record reveals that the Consolidation Officer had rejected the objection of the respondent no.3 on the ground that the lease land cannot be legally sold or transferred in his favour. I find that both the appellate and revisional courts (Respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively) have exceeded in exercise of their jurisdiction, which was not vested in them. The orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation are liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 06-2-1993 and 20-06-1996 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 1 are hereby quashed. However, it is provided that if the petitioner has violated the condition of lease, the competent authority, i.e. Collector is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for determination of her lease. No order as to costs.