JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satyendra Narain Singh appearing for contesting respondents. 2. Facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under : Petitioners, who claim themselves to be landless agricultural labourers, are said to have been allotted one Bigha land each for construction of residential houses out of plot No. 352 by the Land Management Committee/Gaon Sabha on 30.12.1987. It has been alleged that after the allotment made in their favour, they had initially constructed Kuchcha houses and have subsequently made it pucca and are residing therein. During Partal made at the time of consolidation operation, Assistant Consolidation Officer, on inspection, found Abadi existing and submitted a report in this regard. Based on the said report, Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 24.2.1993 directing the land in dispute to be recorded as Abadi in Class 6. The same becomes apparent from perusal of CH Form No. 2A as well as copy of Khatauni 1392F. to 1397 F. filed as Annexure ‘4’ to the writ petition. It appears that subsequently respondent No. 2 moved a time barred objection which was registered as Case No. 8576 on the ground that the land has wrongly been recorded as Abadi in Class 6 as there exists no Abadi on spot and the said plot be valued. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.9.1993 allowed the same. It is clear from the order of the Consolidation Officer filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition that neither any spot inspection was carried out by him nor any notices were issued. Petitioners having come to know of the said order filed an appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation summoned the record of Case No. 8576. Record-Keeper submitted a report that there is no entry of Case No. 8576 in the GOSWARA’. Settlement Officer Consolidation finding that the land in dispute has been allotted by the land management committee to the petitioners and there was no justification to value the land, which was in the shape of an Abadi and allotted to the petitioners, set aside the order of Consolidation Officer. Contesting respondent No. 2 challenged the appellate order by filing revision. Settlement Officer Consolidation finding that the land in dispute has been allotted by the land management committee to the petitioners and there was no justification to value the land, which was in the shape of an Abadi and allotted to the petitioners, set aside the order of Consolidation Officer. Contesting respondent No. 2 challenged the appellate order by filing revision. Revisional Court vide order dated 17.7.2000 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.12.1999 as well as the order dated 24.2.2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer directing the land to be recorded as Abadi in Class ‘6’ and maintained the order dated 15.9.1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer fixing the valuation of the land. 3. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Director of Consolidation without passing any order on the application filed by the petitioners for making spot inspection and without actually carrying out any spot inspection has wrongly and illegally recorded a finding that there is no Abadi existing on the spot. It has further been urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally held the allotment made in favour of the petitioners as illegal and finding that the said lease was not approved by the Sub Divisional Officer is patently illegal and against the record. 4. In reply, it has been urged that since the land in dispute was not Abadi but was agricultural land, the same has rightly been valued and allotted to the answering respondent. It has further been urged that the alleged lease is forged and fictitious document and the same has rightly been cancelled by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. A perusal of documents filed as Annexures ‘1-A’, 1B’ and 1-C, which are ZA Form 49 goes to show that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners by the land management committee on payment of Rs.100/- as premium. The receipts certifying the payment have also been filed as Annexure 2-A’, 2-B’ and 2-C to the writ petition. 6. A perusal of documents filed as Annexures ‘1-A’, 1B’ and 1-C, which are ZA Form 49 goes to show that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners by the land management committee on payment of Rs.100/- as premium. The receipts certifying the payment have also been filed as Annexure 2-A’, 2-B’ and 2-C to the writ petition. Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 24.2.1993 directing the land in dispute to be recorded as Abadi in Class ‘6’ on the basis of report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of spot inspection carried out by him during Partal. 7. It appears that on the objection filed by contesting respondents for valuation of the said land, surreptitiously without issuing any notice and without carrying out any spot inspection, Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 15.9.1993 not only condoning the delay but also fixing the valuation. Settlement Officer Consolidation finding that the petitioners had valid Pattas in their favour and have constructed residential house on the land in dispute set aside the order of Consolidation Officer. Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision on the finding that the said Pattas in favour of the petitioners are illegal and partial construction raised on the land in dispute are also illegal. The finding with regard to partial construction had been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without carrying out any spot inspection, though the petitioners themselves moved application for the same. 8. During Chakbandi Partal, it was found that the land in dispute is in the shape of Abadi, the same was rightly directed to be recorded as Abadi in class ‘6’. Once the land in dispute was in the shape of Abadi, the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction in the matter and the consolidation officer wrongly and illegally valued the said land. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also without considering the entire facts and circumstances and without there being any evidence wrongly recorded a fining that the Pattas in favour of the petitioners are illegal and without jurisdiction. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also without considering the entire facts and circumstances and without there being any evidence wrongly recorded a fining that the Pattas in favour of the petitioners are illegal and without jurisdiction. Once he himself found that there are partial constructions standing on the land in dispute, which was in the nature of Abadi and since the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction in respect of Abadi land even if the alleged Pattas were illegal, he ought not to have upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer determining the valuation of the land. He further wrongly held that the said land has rightly been allotted in the chak of the petitioners, though nothing has been brought on record which may go to show that after valuation the said land was ever allotted in the chak of respondent No. 2. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, since the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction in respect of the land which is in the nature of Abadi, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.12.2000 as well as 15.9.1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and that of the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.12.1999 is affirmed. Writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ————