JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—Instant writ petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 2.11.2002 annexure 1 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation in Case No. 50 under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Raghoraj Singh v. State. The disputed land is situated in Village Ahibaranpur, Pargana Nizamabad, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh, which was notified for consolidation operation for the first time in the year 1955. An Order was passed on 30.12.1959 and Raghoraj Singh was declared as Sirdar and the entry in favour of Gaon Sabha was expunged. However, Amaldaramad of the Order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.12.1959 was not carried out in the consolidation records and the village was denotified under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Raghoraj Singh preferred an application for Amaldaramad of the Order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.12.1959. Report was called for and the Consolidation Officer submitted his report dated 6.4.1980, copy of which is annexed as annexure 2. This report was forwarded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation to the Deputy Director Consolidation and the said report was approved vide Order dated 24.4.1980 and the proposal of the S.O.C. for Amaldaramad dated 30.12.1959 was carried out. A copy of Order dated 24.4.1980 is annexed as annexure 3. 2. Subsequently, entries were also made in Khatauni of 1388 Fasli to 1393 Fasli of village Ahibaranpur over Khata No. 43. The State Government made another notification under Section 4A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act notifying the village for the consolidation operation with effect from 17.4.1981. Proceeding under Section 122 B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 and Rule 115 C of the Rules framed under the said Act were initiated against Raghoraj Singh in respect of the land in dispute but the said proceedings were dropped by Order of the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar Sadar, Azamgarh dated 3.5.1985, since fresh consolidation had commenced. Consequently, name of Raghoraj Singh could not be recorded in the Revenue record and he died leaving the petitioners as his heir. After death of Raghoraj Singh, the petitioners came to know at a subsequent stage that their names are not recorded over the land in question. An application was filed on 15.5.1998 before the District Deputy Director Consolidation, Azamgarh. On receipt of the aforesaid application, the S.O.C./Consolidation Officer was directed to enquire the matter and report be submitted on 19.5.1998. After death of Raghoraj Singh, the petitioners came to know at a subsequent stage that their names are not recorded over the land in question. An application was filed on 15.5.1998 before the District Deputy Director Consolidation, Azamgarh. On receipt of the aforesaid application, the S.O.C./Consolidation Officer was directed to enquire the matter and report be submitted on 19.5.1998. Report was submitted on 31.8.1998 with a recommendation that a dispute in respect of only a part of the land is pending. Copy of the report is annexed as annexure 8. The Consolidation Officer requested the District Government Counsel Revenue, Azamgarh to give his opinion in this matter vide letter dated 23.2.2000. Original records were sent to him. The Deputy Director Consolidation Revenue after examining the entire record arrived at a conclusion that in the previous consolidation proceedings Raghoraj Singh was declared to be the owner in possession. Incidentally, a second consolidation has commenced and the name of the petitioners have not been entered so far. The Consolidation Officer had raised a baseless doubt whereas legally the name of the petitioner is liable to be recorded till the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation during the first consolidation proceedings is not challenged and quashed. Letter of the D.G.C. Revenue dated 31.3.2000 is annexure 8 to the writ petition. The Consolidation Officer submitted his report on 21.7..2000 to the Deputy Director Consolidation seeking permission to incorporate the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.12.1959. However, instead of granting permission to abide by the opinion of the D.G.C. Revenue and the recommendation of the Consolidation Officer, a reference under Section 48(3) of C.H. Act, Raghoraj Singh v. State, was made. The petitioners submitted all the documents and the necessary evidence staking their rightful claim. Reference was preferred to respondent No. 1 District Deputy Director Consolidation, Azamgarh, which was rejected by means of the impugned order. The ground of rejection is that the land in question is a public utility land and therefore the petitioners cannot be recorded. 3. Gaon Sabha has filed its counter-affidavit and has only tried to reiterate what the respondent No. 1 has stated in his order. Though, counter-affidavit has been filed but it has failed to substantiate that the land in question is for public utility within the meaning of Section 132 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 3. Gaon Sabha has filed its counter-affidavit and has only tried to reiterate what the respondent No. 1 has stated in his order. Though, counter-affidavit has been filed but it has failed to substantiate that the land in question is for public utility within the meaning of Section 132 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In fact, no appropriate reply has been given to the various questions raised in the writ petition. 4. Considered arguments of learned counsel and after going through the entire record, it is apparent that the land in dispute was recorded as Sirdar of Raghoraj Singh, predecessor in interest of the petitioner and never land of public utility and the findings to the said effect is without any basis and it is apparently to sidetrack the claim of the petitioners. The proceedings under Section 122B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Rule 115C of the Rules framed thereunder were initiated but they were dropped and Raghoraj Singh was declared Sirdar of the land in dispute by the earlier consolidation Courts. Gaon Sabha had full knowledge about the order of the Consolidation Courts but did not challenge the said order before any competent Court of law. The order dated 30.12.1959 is annexed alongwith rejoinder affidavit and the said order has not been set aside till date and therefore no adverse view can be taken other than what was decided by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in its order dated 30.12.1959. The Deputy Director Consolidation completely erred in law in making reference and forwarded it to the respondent No. 1 without any reason. In fact, it was an uncalled for exercise. Raghoraj Singh, predecessor in interest of the petitioner was directed to be recorded as Sirdar. The Deputy Director Consolidation carved out an absolutely different case and deprived the petitioner of their valid rights. Gaon Sabha became alive only when the second consolidation proceedings commenced and the petitioners tried to get their name entered into the revenue record on the basis of previous proceedings. Objections were preferred, the only basis to arrive at a conclusion against the petitioner is that the land in question is a public utility land whereas nothing is on record to substantiate this fact and therefore the disputed land cannot fall within the ambit of Section 132 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 5. Objections were preferred, the only basis to arrive at a conclusion against the petitioner is that the land in question is a public utility land whereas nothing is on record to substantiate this fact and therefore the disputed land cannot fall within the ambit of Section 132 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the claim of the Gaon Sabha is without any basis. The order passed by respondent No. 1 is set aside. The Writ petition is allowed. The concerned authorities are directed to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue record forthwith and Gaon Sabha shall not interfere in petititoner’s peaceful possession. —————