JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 15.7.2009 passed by D.D.C. Mathura Camp Mahamaya Nagar in Revision No. 429, Nasaruddin v. Babu Lal and others. Through the said order, revision was allowed. Order of S.O.C. dated 1.4.2005 against which revision was directed was set aside and matter was remanded to him to decide the appeal again after hearing the parties and making spot inspection. 3. Gaon Sabha has not been impleaded as party in this writ petition. 4. S.O.C. had passed the order on the basis of compromise. 5. The allegation of Nasaruddin, respondent No. 2 in this writ petition and revisionist in the revision was that on the basis of some fake (forge) compromise, S.O.C. had passed order against the Gaon Sabha. The dispute relates to Plot No. 63/3, area 0.250 hectare. As per the case of respondent No. 2 taken by him before the revisional Court, the said plot was Gaon Sabha property and was reserved for abadi for landless and other persons of the village and was near the existing abadi of the village; that the S.O.C. illegally reserved another land for the said purpose across the river which was far away from the village. It was also stated that proceedings for allotment of different portions of the plot in question for constructing houses were in progress. 6. It is mentioned in the impugned order that petitioner had filed another objection for abolishing abadi from Plot No. 63/3, which was rejected and that Mohd. Yaseen Khan, respondent No. 3 had no authority to enter into compromise on behalf of Gaon Sabha. 7. It appears that before Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed objection that reservation of Plot No. 63/3 for abadi of landless and other persons should be cancelled while Mohd. Yaseen Khan, respondent No. 3 filed objection that more area should be reserved for the said purpose. C.O. through order dated 29.7.1992 rejected the objection of Babu Lal petitioner and accepted the objection of Mohd. Yaseen Khan and instead of area of 0.150 hectares of Plot No. 63/3, area of 0.250 hectares of the said plot was fixed for allotment for the purposes of abadi to landless persons. Against the said order, petitioner filed appeal, which was allowed by S.O.C. on 20.12.1995 declaring that Plot No. 63/3 was abadi of the petitioner. Yaseen Khan and instead of area of 0.150 hectares of Plot No. 63/3, area of 0.250 hectares of the said plot was fixed for allotment for the purposes of abadi to landless persons. Against the said order, petitioner filed appeal, which was allowed by S.O.C. on 20.12.1995 declaring that Plot No. 63/3 was abadi of the petitioner. The said order was set aside in revision and matter was remanded. After remand S.O.C. passed the order which was set aside by the impugned order. Revisional Court has held that on the alleged compromise, signatures of Pradhan Charan Singh or any other member of L.M.C. were not there. Revisional Court exercised the powers under Section 11-C of U.P.C.H. Act, which is quoted below : “11-C. In the course of hearing of an objection under Section 9-A or an appeal under Section 11, or in proceedings under Section 48, the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, may direct that any land which vests in the State Government or the Gaon Sabha or any other local body or authority may be recorded in its name, even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or authority.” 8. Revisional Court further held that any resident of village could initiate proceedings in respect of Gaon Sabha property. 9. Copy of order passed by S.O.C. dated 1.4.2005 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition passed in Appeal No. 62 of 2004-05. The said order is based only on the compromise. 10. Consolidation authorities have got absolutely no jurisdiction to declare right of any person regarding abadi land. Exactly this was done by the S.O.C. through his order dated 1.4.2005. 11. Plot No. 63/3 having been declared reserved for abadi/extension of abadi of landless persons, petitioner had no authority to challenge the said order. There is no question of any compromise in such matter. I do not find least error in the impugned order passed by D.D.C. Annexure-2 contains copies of applications, affidavits and compromise filed by Babu Lal and Mohd. Yaseen Khan before D.D.C. Mohd. Yaseen Khan has got absolutely no authority or power to give Gaon Sabha property to the petitioner. 12. Usurping Gaon Sabha property is common feature in consolidation proceedings. I do not find least error in the impugned order passed by D.D.C. Annexure-2 contains copies of applications, affidavits and compromise filed by Babu Lal and Mohd. Yaseen Khan before D.D.C. Mohd. Yaseen Khan has got absolutely no authority or power to give Gaon Sabha property to the petitioner. 12. Usurping Gaon Sabha property is common feature in consolidation proceedings. Under Rule 110- A(2) of the Rules framed under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, Chairman of Land Management Committee shall not admit a claim or enter into compromise with the opposite party in any suit or proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the Assistant Collector. Accordingly, even Pradhan/Chairman of L.M.C. cannot enter into compromise. 13. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed. 14. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri N.P. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel within three days for immediately sending the same to S.O.C. Mahamaya Nagar. ————