JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh along with Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai, for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for State of U.P., Sri Rajesh Yadav, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, for respondent-5. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 08.08.2014, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 16.03.2015 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.08.2015, canceling previous proceedings relating to determination of valuation of the plots and Provisional Consolidation Scheme of village Maleera and starting consolidation afresh from the stage of determination of valuation of the plots under Section 8 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Village Maleera, pargana and district Muzaffar Nagar was placed under consolidation operation by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 09.12.2006. Thereafter revision of the map, revision of field-book and current annual register, determination of valuation and shares in joint holdings were done according to the provisions of Section 7 and 8 of the Act. Statement of Principles was prepared under Section 8-A of the Act and village was notified under Section 9 of the Act, on 22.03.2010. It may be mentioned that village Maleera is lying on the bank of a river, due to which various plots are either on slopes or lying in belt of river and affected by fluvial action in rainy seasons. These lands are uneven and un-fertile land and known as 'khader' land. Some of the 'khadar' land was valued at a high rate in comparison to 'banger' land. Various plots were left as chak out. 4. Some of the villagers made complaint to the Collector in this respect. The Collector directed Consolidation Officer to examine the grievances of the complainant. Then Consolidation Officer himself held a meeting in the village and made spot inspection. He, by his order dated 02.09.2013, determined valuation of 192 plots again. Thereafter, Provisional Consolidation Scheme was framed and village was notified under Section 20 of the Act on 09.01.2014. In which total 1011 chaks were carved out. Then Consolidation Officer himself held a meeting in the village and made spot inspection. He, by his order dated 02.09.2013, determined valuation of 192 plots again. Thereafter, Provisional Consolidation Scheme was framed and village was notified under Section 20 of the Act on 09.01.2014. In which total 1011 chaks were carved out. Thereafter 227 objections were filed under Section 20 of the Act, out of which in 28 objections valuation of the plots allotted in the chaks of the chak holders were challenged, in 15 objections demand was made for either to determine valuation of their plots or to delete valuation of their plots and in 6 objection valuation of the plots allotted in the chak and allotment of particular plots in chak were challenged. 5. The main grievances of the chak holders were that influential tenure holders got determined valuation of their 'khader' land at a high rate and allotted their chaks on 'banger' land, while the poor tenure holders were allotted their chaks on 'khader' land although their original holdings were on banger' land. As such they were demanding for determination of the valuation of entire land of the village afresh from the stage of Section 8 of the Act and for cancellation of Provisional Consolidation Scheme. They also filed a representation in this respect to Consolidation Commissioner U.P. and Hon'ble Chief Minister and other Minister of U.P. Government. Consolidation Officer held meeting of the villagers in village, under the direction of Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. and submitted his report dated 02.06.2014 holding the most the villagers wanted continuation of consolidation proceedings in the village as such objections under Section 20 of the Act were required to be disposed of as early as possible. Minister of State for Agriculture & Food Processing Industries, Government of India also wrote a letter dated 26.06.2014 to the Collector for starting consolidation afresh from the stage of Provisional Consolidation Scheme. 6. Consolidation Officer consolidated the objections under Section 21 (1) of the Act and heard together, who by order dated 08.08.2014 found that there was gross irregularity in determination of valuation of the plots of the village. Due to determination of valuation at a high rate of low quality, uneven and un-cultivable land, lying in river belt and allotment of uran chaks to the poor villagers, on 'khader' land material injustice has been done to them. Due to determination of valuation at a high rate of low quality, uneven and un-cultivable land, lying in river belt and allotment of uran chaks to the poor villagers, on 'khader' land material injustice has been done to them. On these findings, he allowed the objections and canceled previous proceedings from the stage of determination of valuation of the plots and Provisional Consolidation Scheme of village Maleera and directed for starting consolidation afresh from the stage of determination of valuation of the plots under Section 8 of the Act. 7. The petitioners filed their separate appeals and two other appeals were also filed from the order of Consolidation Officer. These appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by his order dated 16.03.2015 affirmed the findings of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeals. The petitioners filed their separate revisions and two other revisions were also filed from the aforesaid order. All the revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Before Deputy Director of Consolidation, it was argued that neither Consolidation Officer nor Settlement Officer Consolidation inspected the spot. As such Deputy Director of Consolidation, himself inspected the village on 23.07.2015 and heard the villagers who had filed objections before Consolidation Officer. Thereafter, after hearing the arguments, Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 19.08.2015, held that in total 191 objections before Consolidation Officer, the grievances of the tenure holders were in respect of determining valuation of 'khader' at high rate and allotment of uran chaks to them on it, which are uneven and un-cultivable land. Proper ratio value was not determined according to the fertility of the 'khader' and 'banger' land. Lekhpal had not prepared the records according to the orders passed by the authorities. There had been double entry of the area of same plots in various chak holders, due to which there had been discrepancy in the chaks as allotted to the tenure holders. 38 chak holders were allotted three chaks. After the order of Consolidation Officer, Assistant Consolidation Officer changed the valuation of total 1011 plots and the tenure holders were satisfied from it, which also proved that there was gross illegality in determination of the valuation. On these findings he dismissed the revisions. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 8. 38 chak holders were allotted three chaks. After the order of Consolidation Officer, Assistant Consolidation Officer changed the valuation of total 1011 plots and the tenure holders were satisfied from it, which also proved that there was gross illegality in determination of the valuation. On these findings he dismissed the revisions. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 8. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that same Consolidation Officer held meeting in the village and submitted his report dated 02.06.2014 holding that majority of the villagers were satisfied with consolidation proceedings, which was liable to be continued after deciding their objection. Subsequently due to political pressure he by the impugned order dated 08.08.2014, canceled previous proceedings relating to determination of valuation of the plots and Provisional Consolidation Scheme. The proceeding under Chapter II of the Act had become final under Section 11 of the Act, which could not be set aside while deciding chak objections under Chapter III of the Act, in view of bar under Section 11-A of the Act. Tenure holders are debarred from challenging valuation at the subsequent stage as held by this Court in Writ-B No. 17522 of 2015 Sohanveer Singh Vs. DDC and others. Section 21 (4) of the Act does not confer jurisdiction to set aside the valuation of the plots in the village. Out of total 1011 chak holders in the village only 227 objections were filed under Section 20 of the Act, while 182 appeals were filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.08.2014. Thus total 966 chak holders were satisfied from Provisional Consolidation Scheme as it was framed earlier. Setting aside consolidation proceedings from initial stage of determination of valuation was illegal. There had been individual 227 chak objections, which could have been decided, without setting aside whole proceeding. Findings of Deputy Director of Consolidation that Consolidation Committee was not consulted at various stages is incorrect, as proceedings books of all the stages have been signed by Chairman as well as members of Consolidation Committee. The orders of consolidation authorities are illegal and liable to be set aside. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The orders of consolidation authorities are illegal and liable to be set aside. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Section 11-A of the Act provides as follows: - Section 11-A. Bar on objection.- No question in respect of- (i) claims to land, (ii) partition of joint holdings, and (iii) valuation of plots, trees, wells and other improvements, where the question is sought to be raised by a tenure holder of the plot or the owner of the tree, well or other improvements recorded in annual register under Section 10, relating to the consolidation area, which has been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that section but has not been so raised, shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings. 10. Issue as to whether low quality of the land was valued at the high rate and allotted to a tenure holder other than the original tenure holder then such tenure holder can challenge its valuation in the objection under Section 20 of the Act, came up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in Badri Prasad Vs. Smt. Barko, 1966 RD 101 (DB), in which it was held that bar contained under Section 11-A does apply to a third person to challenge valuation of the plots who is allotted uran chak on it. Similarly this Court in Ram Samujh Vs. DDC and others, 1996 (87) RD 311, Budhi Ram Vs. DDC and others, 2006 (100) RD 260 and Sheo Chand Vs. DDC and others, 2013 (120) RD 334 held that bar contained under Section 11-A of the Act, affects right of the tenure holder and not jurisdiction of consolidation authorities to redetermine the valuation, if he was satisfied that gross illegality has been committed. 11. In this case, Deputy Director of Consolidation, after inspection of the village recorded a finding that gross irregularity has been committed in determination of the valuation. Proper ratio value was not determined according to the fertility of the 'khader' and 'banger' land. After the order of Consolidation Officer, Assistant Consolidation Officer changed the valuation of total 1011 plots and the tenure holders were satisfied from it. The petitioners could not show any illegality in this finding. Proper ratio value was not determined according to the fertility of the 'khader' and 'banger' land. After the order of Consolidation Officer, Assistant Consolidation Officer changed the valuation of total 1011 plots and the tenure holders were satisfied from it. The petitioners could not show any illegality in this finding. In any case findings of facts in this respect cannot be reviewed by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 12. Arguments that the order has been passed in political pressure is not liable to accepted, only for the reason that a Minister, who is part of Government and responsible for good governance had wrote a letter, raising cause of aggrieved tenure holders. The arguments that out of total 1011 chak holders in the village only 227 objections were filed under Section 20 of the Act, while 182 appeals were filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.08.2014. Thus total 966 chak holders were satisfied from Provisional Consolidation Scheme, are irrelevant, as while deciding the objections of 191 chak holders, it has been found that proper ratio value was not determined according to the fertility of the 'khader' and 'banger' land. HELD: 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.