JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda dated 21.3.2001 by which the revision No. 17 filed by the Gaon Sabha has been allowed. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that gata No. 6362 was reserved for Rahoni (cattle purposes). In the consolidation proceeding, objection filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer, Banda. It appears that the petitioner was claiming allotment of gata No. 6362 in his favour which has been rejected. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Banda. In appeal, the petitioner contended that in gata No. 6362, the petitioner was in possession before the Zamindari Abolition Act and the same was the property of his ancestral. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has accepted the plea of the petitioner that said gata No. 6362 was in possession of the petitioner and was continuing in his name and for some period due to mistake of Patwari, the name of the petitioner was not recorded in Khatauni and in case if the same land would be reserved for Rahoni purposes, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. The Settlement Officer Consolidation accordingly directed to allot gata No. 6362 of the value of Rs. 8.52 paisa and the area of the same value of gata Nos. 6414 and 6425 be reserved for Rahoni purposes. 3. Being aggrieved by the order, Gaon Sabha filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The revisional authority held that gata No. 6362 is reserved for Rahoni purposes it is for public use and there is no reason to allot the said gata No. 6362 to the petitioner. A necessary direction has been issued in this regard. Being aggrieved by the revisional order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard Sri Faujdar Rai, assisted by Sri R.S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. No one appears on behalf of Gaon Sabha. 5. A necessary direction has been issued in this regard. Being aggrieved by the revisional order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard Sri Faujdar Rai, assisted by Sri R.S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. No one appears on behalf of Gaon Sabha. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 19-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) the land of the State and the Gaon Sabha can also be allotted and in case if the Settlement Officer Consolidation has allotted the land of the Gaon Sabha it cannot be said to be illegal. In support of the contention he relied upon the decision in the case of Ram Kumar and another v. Zila Adhikari/D.D.C., Muzaffarnagar and another, 2002 (93) RD 403. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that under Section 19-A (2) of the Act the land of Gaon Sabha and State can be allotted only on the condition mentioned therein. He submitted that the proviso to Section 19-A (2) of the Act provides that such land can be allotted only after the Assistant Consolidation Officer has declared in writing that it is proposed to transfer the rights of the public as well as of all individuals in or over that land to any other land specified in the declaration and earmarked for that purpose in the provisional Scheme. He submitted that in the present case, no such declaration has been made and, therefore, Settlement Officer Consolidation was not justified in allotting the land of the Gaon Sabha to the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order and the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that plot No. 6362 belong to Gaon Sabha and is reserved for Rahoni. 9. Section 3(2) of the Act defines “consolidation” which means rearrangement of holdings in a unit amongst several tenure holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. The Explanation of sub-section (2) of the Act says that for the purpose of this clause, holding shall not include the land mentioned in Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The Explanation of sub-section (2) of the Act says that for the purpose of this clause, holding shall not include the land mentioned in Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Therefore, the land which is reserved for the public purpose is outside the purview of the consolidation. Section 19-A (2) of the Act reads as follows : “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or any other law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for the Assistant Consolidation Officer, where in his opinion it is necessary or expedient so to do, to allot to a tenure-holder, after determining its valuation any land belonging to the State Government, or any land vested in the Gaon Sabha, or any other local authority, as a result of notification issued under Section 117 or 117-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 : Provided that where any such land is used for a public purpose, it shall be allotted only after the Assistant Consolidation Officer has declared in writing that it is proposed to transfer the rights of the public as well as of all individuals in or over that land to any other land specified in the declaration and earmarked for that purpose in the provisional Consolidation Scheme.” 10. There is no dispute that the land of Gaon Sabha or the State Government can be allotted in the consolidation proceeding, but it is possible only on a declaration being made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in writing to the effect that it is proposed to transfer the rights of the petitioner in or over that land to any other land specified in the declaration and earmarked for that purpose in the provisional Consolidation Scheme. It is not the case of the petitioner that any such declaration as required under the proviso has been made in respect of Gata No. 6362. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was not justified in allotting plot which was reserved for Rahoni (cattle purposes) to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that any such declaration as required under the proviso has been made in respect of Gata No. 6362. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was not justified in allotting plot which was reserved for Rahoni (cattle purposes) to the petitioner. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ram Kumar and another v. Zila Adhikari/D.D.C., Muzaffarnagar and another (supra) does not say that in the absence of any declaration under the proviso to Section 19-A (2) of the Act, the land of the Gaon Sabha or State Government can be allotted. Therefore, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. In the result, writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ———