B. K. Narayana, J.: - Heard Sri Murlidhar, senior advocate assisted by Sri R. P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rama Yadav counsel for the respondent no. 1 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4. 2. The dispute involved in the present writ petition relates to plot nos. 2063/4 area 15-13-0 (15 Bigha 13 Biswa) and 2164/7 area 6-7-0 (6 Bigha 7 Biswa) ( herein after referred to as the disputed plots). The undisputed facts of the case are that Yad Ram father of the petitioners and Munshi Ram father of proforma respondent nos. 4 to 7, both sons of late Mai Dayal were in possession over the plots in dispute since before 1359 fasli and their possession was recorded as such in 1359 Fasli. Notwithstanding their possession the names of Yad Ram and Munshi Ram were expunged without there being any order of a competent court and disputed plots were recorded in 1360 Fasli as Banjar Khata of Gram Sabha. The aforesaid Yad Ram and Mushi Ram filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Gram Sabha and the Land Management Committee from interfering with their possession over the disputed plots, which was registered as suit no. 1436 of 1995. The said suit was decreed exparte by Munsif Ghaziabad District Meerut by his judgement and decree dated 10.09.1959, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure no. 5 to the writ petition. The Tehsildar on the basis of the Banjar Khata entry made in 1360 fasli in respect of the disputed plots initiated action under Rule 115 (d) of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Rules (herein after referred to as the Rules) for eviction of Yad Ram and Munshi Ram from the plots in dispute. After notices were issued to the aforesaid Yad Ram and Munshi Ram, the Tehsildar by his order dated 12.10.1959 ordered their eviction from the disputed plots. 3. Against the order dated 12.10.1959, a revision was filed by Yad Ram and Munshi Ram before the Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut which was numbered as Revision No. 17 of 1959 and the said revision was transferred for disposal before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut who by his order dated 02.12.1959 referred the matter to the Board of Revenue with the recommendation that the Tehsildar's order be set aside and the revision filed by the petitioners be allowed. The reference so made was accepted by the Board of Revenue by judgment dated 29.04.1960 and the order of Teshildar's dated 12.10.1959 was set aside by the Board of Revenue, characterizing it as materially illegal and irregular, copy of the order dated 02.12.1959 passed by the Additional Commissioner and order dated 29.04.1960 passed by the Board of Revenue have been filed as Annexure nos. 6 and 7 respectively, to the writ petition. 4. The aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue was not challenged by the Land Management Committee before any higher Court and the same became final between the parties. Thereafter the petitioner's predecessor Yad Ram moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer on the basis of the decree of the Civil Court and the order passed by the Board of Revenue in proceedings under Rules 115 (d) of the Rules for fixation of rent and the Sub Divisional Officer by his order dated 23.02.1963 directed that the papers be sent to the Tehsildar for fixation of rent under Rule 115 (e) of the Rules, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure no. 8 to the writ petition. Although the direction issued by the Sub Divisional Officer vide his order dated 23.02.1963 was not implemented but the petitioner continued to remain in possession over the disputed plots and perfected their title over the same and their names were restored in Column 2 of the Khatauni of 1372 fasli. 5. The consolidation proceedings commenced in the village where the disputed plots are situated in the year 1978. 6. An objection was filed by one Bulla before the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 9 (A) (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer respondent no. 3 for expunging the names of Yad Ram and Munshi Ram recorded as tenure holders of the disputed plots in the basic year and for recording the disputed plots as Banjar Khata of Gram Sabha. The said objection was registered as Case No. 42 of 107. 3 for expunging the names of Yad Ram and Munshi Ram recorded as tenure holders of the disputed plots in the basic year and for recording the disputed plots as Banjar Khata of Gram Sabha. The said objection was registered as Case No. 42 of 107. The predecessors of the petitioners Yad Ram and Munshi Ram were put to notice and thereupon Yad Ram filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer opposing the claim of Bulla, On behalf of Bulla, copy of Khatauni of 1360 fasli in which the disputed plots were recorded as Banjar Khate was filed before the Consolidation Officer whereas on behalf of Yad Ram and Munshi Ram copies of the judgement passed by the Board of Revenue in proceeding under Rule 115 (d) of the Rules and the order dated 23.02.1963 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer for fixation of rent and the judgement and decree passed by Munsif Ghaziabad were filed before the respondent no. 4. The respondent no. 4 however, by his order dated 13.06.2001 ordered that the names of Yad Ram and Munshi Ram recorded in the basic year Khatauni be expunged and the disputed plots be recorded as Banjar Land of Gram Sabha. During the pendency of the proceedings before the respondent no. 4, Yad Ram died and the petitioners were substituted in his place. 7. Aggrieved from the order of the respondent no. 4, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the C. H. Act before the respondent no. 3 which was registered as Appeal No. 43 and dismissed by him by his order dated 13.06.2001. The orders passed by the respondent nos. 4 and 3 were challenged by the petitioners in the revision filed by them under Section 48 (1) of C. H. Act before the respondent no. 2, which was registered as Revision No. 13 and was dismissed by him by his order dated 17.01.2006, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. 8. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 13.06.2001, 28.02.2002 and 17.01.2006 passed by the respondent nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the orders passed by the consolidation authorities accepting the claim of the respondent no. 1 to the writ petition. 8. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 13.06.2001, 28.02.2002 and 17.01.2006 passed by the respondent nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the orders passed by the consolidation authorities accepting the claim of the respondent no. 1 in respect of the disputed plots and refuting that of the petitioners are totally vitiated on account of their failure to appreciate the effect of the decree passed by the civil court in suit no. 1436 of 1955 as well as the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 115 (d) of the Rules for their eviction from the plots in dispute which were decided in their favour as well as the order dated 23.02.1963 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer for fixation of rent under Rule 115 (e) of the Rules in respect of the disputed plots, which was to be paid by the petitioners. 10. He further submitted that the respondent no. 4 manifestly erred in law in ordering for expunction of the names of the petitioners from the Khatauni notwithstanding the fact that the names of the petitioners and their predecessors had continued in the revenue records since 1359 fasli and even after 1360 fasli merely on the basis of a single entry made in favour of Gram Sabha in 1360 Fasli without any order of any competent court. Thus the entry in 1360 fasli showing the disputed plots as "Banjar Khata of Gram Sabha" relied upon by the respondent no. 4 for accepting the claim of the Gram Sabha over the disputed plot was totally inadmissible in evidence as the said entry had not been made in accordance with law. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the respondent no. 3 manifestly erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Sub-Divisioal Officer and the failure of the respondent no. 2 to re-deem the illegality committed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 has rendered the order passed by the respondent no. 2 also totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. 12. 3 manifestly erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Sub-Divisioal Officer and the failure of the respondent no. 2 to re-deem the illegality committed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 has rendered the order passed by the respondent no. 2 also totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submitted that the reasoning given by the Consolidation Authorities for expunging the existing entry in the revenue records in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners that the said entry could not be maintained as in 1360 fasli the disputed plots were recorded as ' Banjar ' and the names of the petitioners' predecessor came to be recorded as the tenure holders of the disputed plots in 1372 fasli without there being any order of a competent authority/court directing expunction of 'Banjar' entry and for recording the names of petitioners' predecessors as tenure holders of the disputed plots is totally fallacious for the reason that the Consolidation Authorities failed to take into account that possession of the predecessors of the petitioners over the disputed plots was recorded in 1359 fasli and the disputed plots were for the first time were recorded as Banjar Khata of Gram Sabha in 1360 fasli without any order of the competent court and the entry of Banjar made in respect of the disputed plots in 1360 fasli was absolutely illegal and invalid and the disputed plots could not held to be ' Banjar Land of Gram Sabha' on the basis of aforesaid single invalid entry. 13. Sri Rama Yadav appearing for the respondent no. 1 and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 4 have made their submissions in support of the impugned orders and vehemently contended that the findings recorded by the respondents nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the impugned orders are based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons and being findings of fact based upon evidence are not liable to be interfered with by this court in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. I have have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the writ petition as well as the impugned orders. 15. 14. I have have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the writ petition as well as the impugned orders. 15. The record shows that the possession of the predecessors of the petitioners Yad Ram and Munshi Ram over the disputed plots was recorded in 1359 fasli. The disputed plots, for the first time, came to be recorded as Banjar Khata of Gram Sabha in 1360 fasli although there was no order of any competent court directing for expunction of the names of the predecessors of the petitioners and for recording the disputed plots as Banjar Khata of Gram Sabha. The names of the predecessors of the petitioners were restored in the revenue record in 1372 fasli and continued thereafter. 16. The record further shows that after the disputed plots were illegally recorded as Banjar Khata of Gram Sabha in 1360 fasli the petitioners' predecessors filed suit no. 1436 of 1995 in the Court of Munsif Ghaziabald District Meerut for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Land Management Committee and the Gram Sabha from interfering with their possession over the disputed plots. The said suit was decreed by the Munsif Ghaziabad by his judgement and decree dated 10.09.1956 whereby the Gram Sabha and the Land Management Committee were restrained permanently from interfering with the possession of the petitioners' predecessors over the disputed plots. 17. It is undisputed that the aforesaid judgement and decree passed by the Civil Court was not challenged by the Gram Sabha and the Land Management Committee in appeal and the same became final between the parties. 18. The record further reveals that the proceeding initiated against the petitioners under Section 115 (d) of the Rules for their eviction from the disputed plots was decided in their favour by the Board of Revenue by a judgement dated 29.04.1960 which had also attained finality between the parties. 18. The record further reveals that the proceeding initiated against the petitioners under Section 115 (d) of the Rules for their eviction from the disputed plots was decided in their favour by the Board of Revenue by a judgement dated 29.04.1960 which had also attained finality between the parties. It is also admitted to the parties that after the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioners' predecessors moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of decree of the civil court and the judgment of the Board of Revenue for fixation of rent under Rule 115 (e) of the Rules and the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 23.02.1963 directed that the papers be sent to the Tehsildar for fixation of rent but the direction so issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not implemented. However petitioners continued to remain in possession over the disputed plots and their names were restored in the revenue records in 1372 fasli. Thus there was sufficient material before the Consolidation Authority showing that the Gram Sabha or the Land Management Committee has no concern with the disputed plots and the binding nature of the decree passed by the civil court, the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been illegally ignored by the Consolidation Authorities while directing the expunction the names of the petitioner and for recording of the disputed plots as Banjar Khata of Gram Sabha. 19. The reasoning given by the Consolidation Authorities for expunging the names of the petitioners' predecessors from the disputed khata that there was no order passed of any competent authority directing the names of the petitioners' predecessors to be recorded as the tenure holders of the disputed plots after expunging the entry made in 1360 fasli showing the disputed plots as Banjar Khata of Gram Sabha and hence various orders relied upon by the petitioners in support of their claims whereof no help to them is totally erroneous and misconceived. 20. 20. The Consolidation Authorities while accepting the entry made in 1360 fasli showing the disputed plots as Banjar has\ve totally failed to consider that prior to 1360 fasli, the possession of the petitioners' predecessors was recorded in 1359 fasli and their names were expunged and the disputed land recorded as Banjar for the first time in 1360 fasli without there being any order of any competent authority in this regard. Thus, the Consolidation Authorities manifestly erred in accepting the claim of the respondent no. 1 on the basis of illegal/invalid Banjar entry contained in 1360 fasli. 21. In my opinion, the Consolidation Authority did not adjudicate the dispute between the parties properly and failed to the consider the legal effect of the decree of the civil court, the judgement of the Board of Revenue passed in favour of the petitioners and the order dated 23.02.1963 on the rights of the parties in respect of the disputed plots in the correct perspective. The impugned orders thus can not be sustained. 22. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 13.06.2001, 28.02.2002 and 17.01.2006 (Annexure nos. 3, 2 and 1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively, are hereby quashed. 23. The matter is remitted back to the Consolidation Officer with a direction to him to decide the objections of the parties with regard to the disputed plots afresh strictly in accordance with law on the basis of evidence on record and in the light of the observations made herein above. 24. The necessary exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondent no. 4 within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. Petition Allowed.