JUDGMENT B.S. Verma, J. 1. Since, in all these three writ petitions, the controversy to be decided is similar, therefore, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Writ Petition (MS) No. 382 of 2001 has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 27.06.1996 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 3. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to Writ Petition (MS) No. 382 of 2001, are narrated in the following paragraph: (i) The dispute in this writ petition relates to basic year Khata No. 22 of Village Pandari, Pargana Rudrapur, Tehsil Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar. In the basic year Khatauni, the names of Sri Shiv Narain Agarwal and Sri Karmendra Narain Agarwal, both sons of Sri Prag Narain Agarwal; Sri Ajay Narain and Sri Vinay Narain, both sons of Sri Shiv Narain Agarwal; Sri Manoj Narain Agarwal s/o Sri Karmendra Narain Agarwal and Smt. Shashi Agarwal w/o Sri Karmendra Narain Agarwal, were recorded as Bhumidhars. Objections under Section 9A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by Sri Karmendra Narain Agarwal, Sri Manoj Narain Agarwal and Smt. Shashi Agarwal before the Consolidation Officer. It was alleged that there was a family settlement dated 17.10.1992 between the parties and it was settled that the names of Sri Shiv Narain Agarwal, Sri Vinay Narain and Sri Ajay Narain be expunged and the names of Km. Meenakshi Agarwal, Km. Madhavi Agarwal and Km. Manisha Agarwal (petitioner Nos. 2 to 4) and Smt. Monika Agarwal (w/o Sri Manoj Narain Agarwal) be also recorded. The Consolidation Officer, vide judgment and order dated 26.07.1994, allowed the objections accepting the said Family Settlement and the names of Sri Shiv Narain Agarwal, Sri Vinay Narain and Sri Ajay Narain were ordered to be expunged and the names of Km. Meenakshi Agarwal, Km. Madhavi Agarwal and Km. Manisha Agarwal (petitioner Nos. 2 to 4) and Smt. Monika Agarwal (w/o Sri Manoj Narain Agarwal) were ordered to be recorded along with the objectors/recorded tenure holders. Thereafter, Sri Karmendra Narain Agarwal & others filed an application for reference before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation under Section 42-A of the Act for giving effect to the order dated 26.07.1994 and, on the report dated 20.10.1994 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the reference was registered as Reference No. 198. Thereafter, Sri Karmendra Narain Agarwal & others filed an application for reference before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation under Section 42-A of the Act for giving effect to the order dated 26.07.1994 and, on the report dated 20.10.1994 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the reference was registered as Reference No. 198. The learned Settlement Officer, Consolidation, vide order dated 27.04.1995, rejected the said reference and also set aside the order dated 26.07.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Thereafter, Sri Karmendra Narain Agarwal preferred a revision, registered as Revision No. 52/75 of 1995-96 before the Deputy Director Consolidation challenging the order dated 27.04.1995 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The learned Deputy Director Consolidation, vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.1996, set aside the order dated 26.07.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the order dated 27.04.1995 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, considering the fact that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, has not decided the matter on merit and the same was decided on procedure. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh on merits keeping in mind the terms of the lease and observations made in the order. 4. Writ Petition (MS) No. 1941 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to the extent whereby the Revision Nos. 52/5, 52/6, 52/7, 52/8 & 52/9 of 1999-2000 filed by the petitioners were dismissed and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 10.03.1997 was set aside and the leased land of villages Kanman, Turkagauri, Gangoli and Behrabhoj was ordered to be vested and recorded as Government land in the records. By way of amendment in the writ petition, a further prayer has been added seeking quashing of the order dated 30.10.1999 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in Appeal No. 177/144/280 of 1999, 178/145/281 of 1999, 179/146/282 of 1999, 180/142/282 of 1999 and 181/147/284 of 1999. 5. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to Writ Petition (MS) No. 1941 of 2008, are narrated in the following paragraph: (i) Consolidation proceedings were started in respect of villages Turkagauri, Behrabhoj, Kanman, Gangoli, Anandpur and Pandri. Each of the petitioners in this writ petition is claiming 1/6th share in the land in question. 5. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to Writ Petition (MS) No. 1941 of 2008, are narrated in the following paragraph: (i) Consolidation proceedings were started in respect of villages Turkagauri, Behrabhoj, Kanman, Gangoli, Anandpur and Pandri. Each of the petitioners in this writ petition is claiming 1/6th share in the land in question. According to them, the family settlement between them was recognized and the Consolidation Officer has recorded the names as per family settlement by his order dated 10.03.1997. The Consolidation Officer has held 1/6th share of each of the petitioners as well as Sri Karmendra Narain Agarwal, Manoj Narain Agarwal and Smt. Shashi Agarwal. Accordingly, the names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records to the extent of 1/6th share in the lease hold rights of the leased property. Thereafter, the consolidation proceedings were closed. After the closure of the consolidation proceedings, respondent No. 1 Manoj Narain Agarwal preferred appeals against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 10.03.1997 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, being Appeal Nos. 145/281, 146/282, 147/284 & 148/283. The said appeals were allowed on 30.10.1999 and the order dated 10.03.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer was set aside and the entries of the recorded tenure holders, who were recorded in the basic year, were maintained. Aggrieved further by order dated 30.10.1999, petitioners filed revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, registered as Revision Nos. 52/5 of 2000, 52/6 of 2000, 52/7 of 2000, 52/8 of 2000 & 52/9 of 2000. Respondent No. 1 Manoj Narain Agarwal had also preferred separate revisions, registered as Revision Nos. 52/10, 52/11 of 1999-2000, 52/12 of 1999-2000, 52/13 of 1999-2000 and 52/14 of 1999-2000. All the said revisions were decided together by a common judgment dated 27.10.2008 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby the revisions were dismissed and the orders dated 10.03.1997 and 30.10.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation respectively were also set aside. 52/10, 52/11 of 1999-2000, 52/12 of 1999-2000, 52/13 of 1999-2000 and 52/14 of 1999-2000. All the said revisions were decided together by a common judgment dated 27.10.2008 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby the revisions were dismissed and the orders dated 10.03.1997 and 30.10.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation respectively were also set aside. It was also directed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the land of villages Kanman, Turkagauri, Behrabhoj and Gangoli be vested with the State Government on the ground that the lease, which was in favour of the revisionists, stood terminated and, so far as the land of village Anandpur is concerned, the orders dated 10.03.1997 and 30.10.1999 were set aside on the ground that the same were passed on the basis of an un-registered family settlement, which could not be accepted. 6. Writ Petition (MS) No. 1954 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 7. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to Writ Petition (MS) No. 1954 of 2008, are narrated in the following paragraph: (i) Consolidation proceedings were started in respect of villages Turkagauri, Behrabhoj, Kanman, Gangoli, Anandpur and Pandri. Petitioner in this writ petition is claiming to be the owner of the land in question on the basis of a lease deed executed in favour of late Sri Raghu Narain, grandfather of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the alleged family settlement between the petitioner and his sisters and mother was recognized and the Consolidation Officer has recorded the names as per family settlement by his order dated 10.03.1997. It was stated by the petitioner that the order dated 10.03.1997 was passed on the basis of a forged document. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by order dated 10.03.1997, petitioner preferred appeals against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 10.03.1997 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, being Appeal Nos. 145/281, 146/282, 147/284 & 148/283. The said appeals were allowed on 30.10.1999 and the order dated 10.03.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer was set aside and the entries of the recorded tenure holders, who were recorded in the basic year, were maintained. Aggrieved further by order dated 30.10.1999, petitioner filed revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, registered as Revision Nos. The said appeals were allowed on 30.10.1999 and the order dated 10.03.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer was set aside and the entries of the recorded tenure holders, who were recorded in the basic year, were maintained. Aggrieved further by order dated 30.10.1999, petitioner filed revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, registered as Revision Nos. 52/10, 52/11 of 1999-2000, 52/12 of 1999-2000, 52/13 of 1999-2000 and 52/14 of 1999-2000 partially challenging the order dated 30.10.1999. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 also preferred separate revisions. All the revisions were decided together by a common judgment dated 27.10.2008 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby the revisions were dismissed and the orders dated 10.03.1997 and 30.10.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation respectively were also set aside. It was also directed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the land of villages Kanman, Turkagauri, Behrabhoj and Gangoli be vested with the State Government on the ground that the lease, which was in favour of the revisionists, stood terminated and, so far as the land of village Anandpur is concerned, the orders dated 10.03.1997 and 30.10.1999 were set aside on the ground that the same were passed on the basis of an un-registered family settlement, which could not be accepted. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. 9. The only issue, which is to be decided by this Court is, whether the alleged compromise dated 17.10.1992 is a valid compromise or not. 10. These facts are undisputed that the land was recorded in the names of six persons in the basic year khatauni. Objections under Section 9A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act had been filed by Sri Karmendra Narain Agarwal, Sri Manoj Narain Agarwal and Smt. Shashi Agarwal for the purpose of recording their names on the basis of the alleged Family Settlement dated 17.10.1992 made between the parties. This fact is also not disputed that the land, initially, was given to Sri Prag Narain under the Government Grants Act and he died in the year 1938. Thereafter, the names of his successors were recorded in his place, which are recorded in the basic year khatauni on the basis of a family settlement made before the civil court. The learned Consolidation Officer, vide judgment and order dated 26.07.1994, allowed the objections. Thereafter, the names of his successors were recorded in his place, which are recorded in the basic year khatauni on the basis of a family settlement made before the civil court. The learned Consolidation Officer, vide judgment and order dated 26.07.1994, allowed the objections. However, the said judgment and order was set aside by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 27.04.1995. In revision, the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide judgment and order dated 27.06.1996, set aside the orders dated 26.07.1994 as well as the order dated 27.04.1995 and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh on merits, which is the subject matter of challenge in WPMS No. 382 of 2001. So far as the other two writ petitions are concerned, challenge has been thrown to judgment and order dated 27.10.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revisions. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that the alleged family arrangement is not recognized as that is an unregistered instrument and, therefore, on that basis, the objections were liable to be rejected. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has also held that the lease, which was granted in favour of Late Sri Prag Narain, has been determined by the Collector and, after the UP Government Estates Thekedari Abolition (Re-enactment and Validation) Act, 1970 (UP Act No. 28 of 1970), they have no right to continue and the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has also ordered that the land be vested with the State Government. 11. Sri Pradeep Kant, the learned Senior Advocate, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kale & others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in 1976 AIR 807, which judgment has also been relied upon by the Consolidation Officer. On the basis of the said judgment, the learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the oral family settlement, which has been reduced in writing and, thereafter, has been recognized; is not needed to be registered and the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has, thus, committed manifest error of law. 12. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State has contended that, in respect of the land, which was given on lease and such lease has already been determined, petitioners cannot make any family arrangement. 12. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State has contended that, in respect of the land, which was given on lease and such lease has already been determined, petitioners cannot make any family arrangement. Even before the determination of the lease, they cannot make any family arrangement since they were having only the tenancy rights and it is only the owner of the land, who can make any family arrangement. This fact is not disputed that the land belonged to the State Government and it was given on lease. 13. I have perused the relevant provisions of the UP Act No. 28 of 1970, which are necessary to be mentioned in order to deal with the controversy at hand. The UP Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958 (UP Act No. 1 of 1959) was revalidated by UP Act No. 28 of 1970. Clause (b) of Section 4 was substituted by UP Act No. 28 of 1970, w.e.f. 20.06.1964, which reads as under: “(b) Where under and in accordance with the terms of the lease, the lessee has brought any land included in the lease under his personal cultivation, the lessee shall become hereditary tenant of such land, or where such land exceeds the ceiling area, then of so much of such land as in aggregation with any other land held by him in Uttar Pradesh makes up the ceiling area, and shall be liable as such to pay rent equal or proportionate, as the case may be, to the rent, if any, payable in terms of the lease.” 14. Thus, it is clear from the above-quoted Clause (b) that the lessee, after determination of lease, can only hold his ceiling area. Therefore, the tenure holders are having no right to make any family arrangement regarding the excess land. 15. Section 6 of the UP Act No. 28 of 1970 reads as under: “6. Thus, it is clear from the above-quoted Clause (b) that the lessee, after determination of lease, can only hold his ceiling area. Therefore, the tenure holders are having no right to make any family arrangement regarding the excess land. 15. Section 6 of the UP Act No. 28 of 1970 reads as under: “6. Validation – Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal to the contrary, anything done or purporting to have been done and any action taken or purporting to have been taken under any provision of the principal act before the commencement of this Act, including, in particular, any notification under sub-section (3) of Section 1, any determination of lease under Section 3, or the recovery of any rents or other dues under Section 4 or the taking over of possession or charge of land or of books, accounts or other documents under Section 6, of that Act, shall be deemed to be, and always to have been as valid as if the provisions of this Act were in force at all material times.” 16. Thus, as per the above-quoted Section 6, an order for determination of lease has been held to be valid as if the provisions of the UP Act No. 28 of 1970 were in force at all material times. 17. As to the validity of the alleged Family Settlement, Sri Pradeep Kant, the learned Senior Advocate, has vehemently argued that, if a family arrangement is made orally and later on it was reduced in writing, the same is not compulsory to be registered in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kale & others (supra). This fact is not disputed that the alleged family settlement is not a registered document. In my view, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Kale & others (supra) is not disputed. However, it would apply only on those memorandums of family arrangement, which are made prior to the UP Amendment (as amended by UP Act No. 20 of 1974) made in Sub-Section (15) of Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The said judgment was delivered prior to the said amendment and, therefore, this judgment is of no help to the petitioners. The said judgment was delivered prior to the said amendment and, therefore, this judgment is of no help to the petitioners. However, in this regard, it is necessary to refer to Sub-Section (15) of Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by UP Act No. 20 of 1974. The same is quoted below: “(15) “Instrument of Partition” means any instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severalty, and also includes:- (i) A final order for effecting a partition passed by any revenue authority or any civil court. (ii) An award by an arbitrator directing a partition. (iii) When any partition is effected without executing any such instrument, any instrument or instruments signed by the co-owners and recording, whether by way of declaration of such partition or otherwise, the terms of such partition amongst the co-owners.” 18. Clause (iii) of Sub-Section (15) quoted above is relevant which says when any partition is effected without executing any such instrument, any instrument or instruments signed by the co-owners and recording, whether by way of declaration of such partition or otherwise, the terms of such partition amongst the co-owners. Even a memorandum, whereby the declaration of partition earlier made is executed, the same is an instrument of partition in view of this definition. In view of Section 17, instrument of partition of immovable property is compulsory to be registered and stamp duty has to be paid as per Schedule I-B Article 45. Admittedly, the same has not been paid in the present case. Further, Section 35 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 provides that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped. This fact is also not disputed that the duty has not been paid on the instrument in terms of Article 45 of Schedule I-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Furthermore, registration is also compulsory under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which provides that the document, which has to be registered compulsorily, can only be read for co-lateral purposes. The said Section 49 reads as under: “49. Furthermore, registration is also compulsory under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which provides that the document, which has to be registered compulsorily, can only be read for co-lateral purposes. The said Section 49 reads as under: “49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.- No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) or of any other law for the time being in force to be registered shall – (a) Affect any immovable property comprised therein. (b) Confer any power or create any right or relationship. (c) Be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, or creating such right or relationship. Unless it has been registered: Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.” 19. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this document cannot be said to be a valid family arrangement deed and the learned Consolidation Officer has wrongly passed the impugned order and has committed manifest error of law. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by him is totally perverse. On the other hand, the learned Settlement Officer, Consolidation, has not committed any error of law in rejecting that family arrangement. 20. Even otherwise, as discussed above, the tenure holders, who are recorded in the basic year khatauni, in view of Clause (b) of Section 4 of the UP Act No. 28 of 1970, as quoted above, can hold only the ceiling area and not more than that. Therefore, the learned Consolidation Officer has further committed error of law by continuing to record their names on the excess area. If the entries are not corrected during the consolidation proceedings, then, after the closure of consolidation, Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act comes in the way to correct such entries and it is the duty of the consolidation authorities to maintain correct revenue records since the proceedings under Consolidation of Holdings Act are settlement proceedings. 21. If the entries are not corrected during the consolidation proceedings, then, after the closure of consolidation, Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act comes in the way to correct such entries and it is the duty of the consolidation authorities to maintain correct revenue records since the proceedings under Consolidation of Holdings Act are settlement proceedings. 21. So far as the judgment passed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation is concerned, in my view, the entire land cannot be said to have been vested with the State Government. In view of the above-quoted Clause (b) of Section 4 of the UP Act No. 28 of 1970, the tenure holders, who were recorded at the time of determination of lease, became the hereditary tenants of ceiling area and, therefore, are entitled to have at least the ceiling area. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, in part on this issue only, is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. Since the land originally belonged to the State Government, which was given to Late Sri Prag Narain under the Government Grants Act, the lessee was having only the tenancy rights and, in terms of UP Act No. 28 of 1970, his successors are entitled to retain the land up to the limit of ceiling area in view of the amended section. 22. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to mention here that the validity of the UP Act No. 28 of 1970 was also assailed before the Allahabad High Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Court, thereby, affirming the validity of the UP Act No. 28 of 1970. The said judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court was assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Lal vs. Second Additional District Judge & Others, AIR 1995 SC 2078 and the Hon’ble Apex Court has also upheld the validity of UP Act No. 28 of 1970. 23. In view of what has been discussed above, Writ Petition (MS) No. 1941 of 2008 and Writ Petition (MS) No. 1954 of 2008 are partly allowed. 23. In view of what has been discussed above, Writ Petition (MS) No. 1941 of 2008 and Writ Petition (MS) No. 1954 of 2008 are partly allowed. The Consolidation Officer is directed to undertake the exercise to correct the entries, after hearing the State, and find out how much is excess from the ceiling area of the tenure holders, who were recorded in the basic year khatauni, as it would be determined by the Collector under the UP Act No. 28 of 1970, and decide the matter in accordance with law. Writ Petition (MS) No. 382 of 2001 stands dismissed.