JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.09.1991. passed by Consolidation Officer, Kicheha, order dated 21.05.1992 passed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Kichcha and order dated 27.01.1993 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Addl. District Magistrate (Nazul), Rudrapur. 2. Brief facts as asserted in the petition, shorn of unnecessary details, are that petitioner purchased the land Gata No. 182/4 measuring about 0.1181 acres situate within village Siraulikalan, Tehsil Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar from Jain-ud-din/ respondent no-4 (now deceased) through a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1983 for establishing an industry and since then the petitioner is in continuous possession over the land in dispute. On the said land two rooms and boundary wall were constructed. It is further asserted in the petition that as the plots purchased by the petitioner were situated in industrial area, therefore, no valuation was determined, and accordingly, the consolidation authorities declared said land beyond the purview of consolidation proceedings. On 20.09.1986, the said village carne into consolidation proceedings and no exchange rate was fixed on the land purchased by the petitioner. The land in Khata no. 182/1, 182/2 and 182/4 has been held out of consolidation, whereas land of Khata No. 182/3, being the road ofNH74, was held out for consolidation. It has been further asserted in the petition that the Consolidation Officer in co’briivance with respondent nos. 4 & .5 passed an order on 12.09.1991 by determining the valuation of said property in ‘favour of respondent nOA, as his name was found entered in the revenue record, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or impleading him as a party. Against the order of Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who vide order dated 21.05.1992 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable holding that .the petitioner was not a party before the consolidation authorities, therefore, he cannot file an appeal. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Settlement Officer, the petitioner filed revision before the District Magistrate, which was lateron transferred to the Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Addl. District Magistrate (Nazul) , Rudrapur, who vide order dated 2.7.01.1993 rejected the same. 3. I have heard Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal and Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocates for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mrs. District Magistrate (Nazul) , Rudrapur, who vide order dated 2.7.01.1993 rejected the same. 3. I have heard Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal and Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocates for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Krishi Shukla, Advocate for respondent no.6 and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased the land of Gata No. 182/4 (earlier known as No. 182/1 & 182 min.) on 10.02.1983 and was in possession since 1976. He denied that Niamuddin and Raisuddin were or are in possession of the land at any point of time. He argued that at the time of starting of consolidation proceedings it was ABADI of the petitioner, which was duly purchased in the name of Alpha industries and was in possession of the petitioner, even then no notice was sent or served upon it. He contended that order of fixing exchange rate has been passed in a very haste manner. The petitioner was in possession of the land No. 182/4 since 1976, therefore at the time of PARTAL in CH -2A was mentioned as ABADI and industrial area, thus the order fixing exchange rate of the land of the petitioner is wholly illegal. He submitted that Jain-ud-din and his brothers admitted the possession of the petitioner since 1976 and have made statement before the consolidating authority that they have no objection on giving this land to the petitioner. He submitted that only, Gata No. ,143 measuring 0.0250 hectares was declared non-agriculture and not the land of 820 min., 821 min. and 822 min. He also submitted that land of Gata No. 376 and 377 together were made from Gata No. 182/4 and this land never remained either in ownership or in possession of Rais Ahmad and his brothers. He further submitted that the petitioner is owner and in possession of the land of Gata No. 182/4, which was mentioned in PARTAL. This land of Gata No. 182/4 was recorded in the name of Jain-ud-din, and thus, the petitioner became the owner and was in possession since 1976 over the land and Rais Ahmed got passed order in his favour of the land, which was not under consolidation proc7ed~Ilgs and cannot be under the consolidation proceedings due to ABADI and industrial area belonging to the petitioner. He contended that the application for fixing exchange value was not in respect of Gata No. 182/4, but was only in respect of Gata No. 182, as Jain-ud-din and ,his brothers knew that the land was sold out to the petitioner and’ was in its possession since 1976 i.e. much before the initiation of the consolidation proceedings, but the Consolidation Officer wrongly and arbitrarily fixed the rate of Gata No. 182/4, which was out of consolidation proceedings and was in ownership and possession of the petitioner and that too without serving any notice or providing opportunity of hearing the petitioner, as such the order fixing the rate of land of Gata No. 182/4'is totally void ab-initio and is no order in the eye of law. He denied that Jain-ud-din was Bhumidhar with non-transferable right. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted on 09.09.1991 notice was issued only to Jain-ud-din andno notice was issued to his brothers or to the petitioner, whose ABADI was recorded in the first PARTAL. He contended that land of Gata No. 182/4 was in possession of the petitioner since 1976, and was thereafter sold out to the petitioner. This land was an industrial area and ABADI of the petitioner at the time of PARTAL and initiation of consolidation proceedings, as such, was chak-out and was out of consolidation proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Appellate Court erred in holding that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner was not party to the consolidation proceedings. He contended that the petitioner was aggrieved party, as the petitioner purchased the land by means lease deed, prior to the commencement of consolidation proceeding in the village, as such appeal preferred under section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 should have been decided on its own merits. He placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in ‘Jagmohan Singh vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation & ors., reported in 1988 Revenue Decisions-tis and submitted that the dismissal of the appeal of petitioner on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable, is wron and invalid apart from being i1legal, as the petitioner has been illegally deprived of the right of appeal, even though it was affected and aggrieved party. Director of Consolidation & ors., reported in 1988 Revenue Decisions-tis and submitted that the dismissal of the appeal of petitioner on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable, is wron and invalid apart from being i1legal, as the petitioner has been illegally deprived of the right of appeal, even though it was affected and aggrieved party. He further contended that the orders impugned are wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust, Inasmuch as, no opportunity of hearing was offered to the petitioner by the consolidation authorities before fixing valuation of the property in dispute; which is violative of principle of natural justice. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation ii 0 wrongly observed that the petitioner, who was not present before the consolidation authorities, could not file any appeal. He contended that the property in dispute situates in industrial area, which is out of the scope of consolidation proceedings. He submitted that the consolidation authorities have failed to make spot inspection of the property in dispute in order to know exact location and as to whether the property falls within industrial area or not, which has resulted in substantial failure and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. He further argued that the character of the property in dispute is exactly same as other plots which fall under industrial area and the action of the respondents In distinguishing the properties in dispute from other like plots without giving any reason, is arbitrary and illegal. 6. Learned counsel- for the petitioner further contended that once the land has been declared out of consolidation, in that situation, the Consolidation Officer does not have any jurisdiction or power for fixation of rate on such land within the consolidation proceedings. In this regard he placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Hari Narayan and ors. vs. Deputy Director of’ Consolidation, Deoria and ors’, reported in 2005 (98) Revenue Decisions-491, ‘Kumar Lohar vs. RamDhandra Dubey’, reported in 1982 ALJ-1129, ‘Triloki Nath vs. Ram Gopal and ors.’, reported in 1974 Revenue Decisions-5, ‘Kamla Shanker and ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & ors.’, reported in 1979 Revenue Decisions-78 and ‘Chakat vs. Babu Ram’, reported in 1987 Revenue Decisions-85. 7. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & ors.’, reported in 1979 Revenue Decisions-78 and ‘Chakat vs. Babu Ram’, reported in 1987 Revenue Decisions-85. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.6 submitted that respondent nO-4- Jain-ud-din and his brothers Naimuddin and Raisuddin sons of Kamruddin were the Bhumidhar with transferable rights and were in possession of Gata No. 182/4. He submitted that at the time of issuance of CH Form, no exchange rate was fixed and it was shown out of consolidation. The respondent nO-4 and his brothers filed objection before the Consolidation Officer for fixation of exchange rate and for proposing their Chaks. On 12.09.1991 the Consolidation Officer fixed the exchange rate of Gata No. 182/4 having area 0.1181 hectare The Asstt. Consolidation Officer proposed the K.No. 182/4 having area 0.0518 in Chak of respondent nos. 5 & 6 and no objection was filed by respondent no. 4 or his brothers. The Chak became final and possession thereof was also handed over to respondent nos. 5 & 6. After the possession, the respondent no.6 raised construction in the land Gata No. 182/4 and the petitioner has no concern to it. He contended that after the petitioner moved objection that he has purchased land of K.No. 182 M. area 2 Bighas 9 Bishwas from Jain-ud-din and his brothers through the alleged sale deed dated 10.02.1983, executed by Jain-ud-din, and since then the petitioner is in possession through Tulsi Ram. Initially, the suit was contested by Jain-ud-din and his brothers, and subsequently the case was compromised and vide order dated 26.07.1997 the name of petitioner has . been recorded.· He submitted that Khatauni was prepared and the names of petitioner as well as respondents are recorded in the Khatauni of the year 1406 Fasli to 1499 Fasli. He submitted that the Asstt. Collector, 1st Class, Rudrapur vide order dated 01.03.2000 declared the land of petitioner of Khata No. 275-Gata No. 143, 0.0250, 820 M, 0.0418, 821M, 0.0412 and 322 00415 as non-agriculture land and the land belongs to respondent no.6 and his brother now recorded in Khata Khatauni No. 46/1406-1411 Fasli, Gata No. 137 0.1800 and 376 0.0518, the old number of Gata No. 376 is 182/4. He submitted that. He submitted that. a -portion of land of old Khasra No. 182/2, 0.0250, New No. 143, 0.0250 area has been given to the petitioner, is a road on the spot as has been shown in the confirm Sajra of the village. He also contended that the petitioner is not the owner of K.No. 182/4, as claimed by it on the basis of alleged sale deed. He further submitted that the name of petitioner was recorded on the. land, which was recorded in the name of respondent 11004 and his brothers and the land Khata No. 182/4 was not recorded in the name of respondent no. 4 and his brothers on 26.07.1997, as the same was allotted in the Chak of respondent no.6 and his brothers. 8. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.6 further contended that the alleged sale deed, which was in favour of petitioner, was a void sale deed, because Jain-ud-din was Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights on the date of said transfer, hence no fight can accrue to the petitioner. He argued that valuation of the and in question was fixed on the application of respondent nOA and his brother. He contended, that the Consolidation Officer has already issued notice to the parties and opportunity had been given to the landholder of the land in question. Learned Senior Advocate further contended that on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated 10.02.1983, on which the petitioner based its claim, was falling, in category-rkha land, as provided under para-rea of the Land Record Manual. He submitted that the tenureholder of category- 1Kha do not have transferable rights, and thus, such land could not have been transferred to t4epetitioner, as the said sale deed happens to be in violation of provisions of Z.A. & L.R. Act, it will not confer any valid title on the petitioner due to avoid document, and as a consequence whereof, the provisions of Section 166/167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act would follow. He submitted thaton the basis of sale deed, the petitioner instituted Suit No. 19 of 1992 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Udham Singh Nagar in relation to Khet No. 182/4. In that suit as many as six issues were framed. Issue no. He submitted thaton the basis of sale deed, the petitioner instituted Suit No. 19 of 1992 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Udham Singh Nagar in relation to Khet No. 182/4. In that suit as many as six issues were framed. Issue no. 2 was framed to the effect that whether the petitioner has purchased the property from Jain-ud-din by a registered document and is in possession thereof by creating it ABADI, issue no. 4 was framed to the effect as to whether the defendant has executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, if so its effect, issue no. 3 was framed to the effect that whether the land in dispute is under consolidation proceedings and issue no.6 was framed as towhether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, and the trial Court vide judgment dated 13.02.2004 held out that no sale deed was filed or proved by the plaintiff to substantiate its case; no sale consideration was transferred because after considering the specific plea of having been recorded under category-rkha, as a Government lessee, was having a non-transferable rights; in absence of Gazette Notification the land in dispute is under consolidation process and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear and try the suit. He further contended that in the said suit proceedings, the petitioner in his examination-in-chief has admitted that disputed land is under consolidation and Akil Ahmad and Rais Ahmad are recorded as Sankrmaniya Bhumidliar in category-aka, ‘inasmuch as, the Khatauni pertaining to 1408 Fasli illustrates that Akil Ahmad and Rais Ahmad are in possession of the land in the capacity of category-aka, accordingly, the trial Court held out that the petitioner has not been able to establish thaton which part of Khasra no. 182/4 it is in possession. The petitioner, being aggrieved against said judgment dated 13.02.2004, preferred Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2004 before the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, which too was dismissed on 06.12.2006. 9. I have considered the rival arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment passed by the Courts below as well as the law cited by the respective parties. The petitioner claims its title over the land in dispute, which it has purchased from Jain-ud-din/respondent nOA through a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1983 for establishing an industry. The petitioner claims its title over the land in dispute, which it has purchased from Jain-ud-din/respondent nOA through a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1983 for establishing an industry. The petitioner further claims that it has purchased the land prior to the commencement of consolidation proceeding in the village and in such situation, appeal preferred under Section 11 of the D.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 should have been decided on its “pwn merits, as the petitioner was the aggrieved party. Petitioner alleges that order dated 12.09.1991 determining the valuation of said property was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the, petitioner or impleading it as a party. On the basis of alleged sale deed the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 19 of 1992 and the trial Court held out that it has no jurisdiction to hear and try the suit. In order to substantiate its claim, the petitioner neither filed nor proved the alleged sale deed before the Court below. This Court is deciding this petition on the question whether appeal filed by the petitioner before Settlement Officer is maintainable. In Jagmohan Singh’s case (supra) the High Court of Allahabad has held that “Crux of the matter appears to be the prejudice of injury which is caused to a person by the order. If there is injury then whether the statute says so or is silent, uihether the language is. narrow or wide the remedy of appeal provided can be availed both on principle of natural justice and existence of prejudicial order against person concerned. In light ofthese principles a person who is effected by an order of consolidation officer cannot be deprived of approaching the appellate authority”. I am of the view that the petitioner has been deprived of the right of appeal in view of its claim that he has purchased the land prior to the consolidation proceedings. his Court is not exercising the powers vested upon Revenue Court for determining that the alleged sale deed dated 10.02.1983, on which the petitioner based its claim, was executed by a tenureholder of the land, falling in the category-iKha, as has been contended by learned counsel for respondent no.6 that tenure holder with category-1Kha. his Court is not exercising the powers vested upon Revenue Court for determining that the alleged sale deed dated 10.02.1983, on which the petitioner based its claim, was executed by a tenureholder of the land, falling in the category-iKha, as has been contended by learned counsel for respondent no.6 that tenure holder with category-1Kha. do not havetransferable rights, as such, said sale deed happens to be in violation of provisions of Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, however, it is for the Court, wherethe matter was appealed for, to assess and consider the factual as well as legal aspect of the matter and provide proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to establish their case by producing documentary evidence . Therefore, it is held that appeal filed by the petitioner was maintainable. 10. In the light of what has been expressed in the preceding paragraphs! the matter requires proper adjudication and it is a fit case to remand back to the Court where the matter was appealed for. Since, this matter pertains to the year 1993, in the interest of justice it is desirable that the ‘matter be decided as expeditiously as possible, preferablewithin a period of 6 months. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 21.05.1992 passed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Kichcha and order dated 27.01.1993 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation/Addl. District Magistrate (Nazul), Rudrapur are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Court i.e. Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Kichcha for adjudication of the matter afresh. The Appellate Court shall provide full and proper opportunity to the parties, including the petitioner in order to adduce evidence in support of their claims. The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is made absolutely clear that the Appellate Court, while deciding the matter, shall not be influenced in any manner of the observations made above by this Court and the appeal shall be decided on its own merits . No order as to-costs.