JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, for the petitioner and Standing Counsel, for State of U.P. and Sri Rajesh Yadav, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 24.07.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.04.2015, passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Phul Singh alias Phulla son of Rayla, father of the petitioner filed a time barred objection (registered as Case No. 3559) under Section 9-A of the Act, for recording his name as "bhumidhar with non-transferable right" over plot 1230 (area 2-5-0 bigha) of village Nanauta, pargana Rampur, district Saharanpur. It has been stated by him that the land in dispute was gaon sabha land and recorded as kallar. He had been in possession over the land in dispute since before 30.06.1985. He was agricultural labour belonging to Schedule caste and did not have more than 3.125 acre land. On the basis of possession, he acquired "bhumidhar with non-transferable right" under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Consolidation Officer tried the case. The petitioner examined himself, Rajendra, Lal Singh and Prem Singh, Pradhan to prove his possession over the land in dispute since before 30.06.1985 and filed caste certificate. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 17.12.1988, held that possession of Phul Singh since before 30.06.1985 was proved from oral evidence as such he had acquired "bhumidhar with non-transferable right" under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On these findings the objection was allowed and name of Phul Singh was directed to be recorded over the land in dispute. Later on valuation of plot 1320 (area 2-5-0 bigha) was allotted to the petitioner in his chak 692 on plot 1229 along with his other holding plot 1229/8. It is stated that chaks of the village were confirmed and notification under Section 24 of the Act was issued on 29.09.2005. 4. At the time of preparation of final consolidation record, Assistant Consolidation Officer found that total area of plot 1230 was 10-17-0 bigha. It is stated that chaks of the village were confirmed and notification under Section 24 of the Act was issued on 29.09.2005. 4. At the time of preparation of final consolidation record, Assistant Consolidation Officer found that total area of plot 1230 was 10-17-0 bigha. Land Management Committee through its resolution dated 19.06.1984 allotted an area of 10-10-0 bigha of plot 1230 to landless persons and thereafter, through resolution dated 23.11.1988 again allotted an area of 7-9-0 bigha of plot 1230. Apart from it, during consolidation, the names of various persons came to be recorded giving benefit of possession under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 over an area of 14-10-0 bigha. Thus total area of plot 1230 will become 32-9-0 bigha.When, he inspected the spot, he did not find possession of any persons, whose names were directed to be recorded by consolidation authorities giving benefits of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On the basis of this report dated 12.06.2007, Settlement Officer Officer Consolidation registered seven appeals under Section 11 of the Act, exercising powers under Section 11-C of the Act and by order dated 24.07.2013, set aside all the orders of Consolidation Officer giving benefits of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 to the persons and directed for deleting their names from plot 1230. 5. Phul Singh son of Hushiyara filed a revision (registered as revision No. 712/460) and the petitioner filed a revision (registered as revision No. 713/461) from the aforesaid order, along with delay condonation application. The revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 30.04.2015 held that right under Section 122-B (4-F) can be awarded by the Collector and Additonal Collector, in view of Explanation given under Section 122-B (4-E) of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to award any right under Section 122-B (4-F). Order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, setting aside the orders of Consolidation Officer do not suffer from any illegality. On these findings, the revisions were dismissed and departmental action was recommended against the Consolidation Officer. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. By the order dated 13.08.2015, the petitioner was granted time to file documentary evidence to prove his possession over the land in dispute since before 30.06.1985. On these findings, the revisions were dismissed and departmental action was recommended against the Consolidation Officer. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. By the order dated 13.08.2015, the petitioner was granted time to file documentary evidence to prove his possession over the land in dispute since before 30.06.1985. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed Supplementary Affidavit, annexing the copy of the order dated 25.08.2015 passed in Writ-B No. 47941 of 2015 Phullu Singh son of Hushiyara who had claimed his right on the basis of patta dated 16.12.1980 granted by Land Management Committee in his favour, copy of his patta of plot 1229/3 (area 0-15-0 bigha), copy of his CH Form-11 of plot 1229/8, copy of objection filed by his father dated 22.07.1988, copies of statements of Prem Singh, Pradhan, Rajendra, Lal Singh and Phul Singh, copy of his CH Form-23, CH Form-11 of plot 1230, copy of Government Order dated 27.02.1987 issued to the Collector in U.P. to implement the provision of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that possession of the petitioner was proved from oral evidence on record, including statement of Prem Singh, Pradhan and Lal Singh, Member of Land Management Committee. The order of Consolidation Officer did not suffer from jurisdictional error in as much as Supreme Court in Manorey @ Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., 2003 (94) RD 538 (SC) held Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 not only provides a shield to protect possession but also confers right of bhumidhar on the occupant of the land. If right has been acquired under U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 to a person, then it is well within jurisdiction of consolidation authorities to record the name of that person over the land. Findings of respondents-1 and 2 that consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to confer right under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 are illegal. Respondents-1 and 2 have illegally failed to record any findings in respect of possession over the land in dispute. Phul Singh son of Rayla, father of the petitioner died on 19.09.2006, Settlement Officer Consolidation passed the order against a dead person without impleading the petitioner as party in the appeal or giving him notice of the appeal. Respondents-1 and 2 have illegally failed to record any findings in respect of possession over the land in dispute. Phul Singh son of Rayla, father of the petitioner died on 19.09.2006, Settlement Officer Consolidation passed the order against a dead person without impleading the petitioner as party in the appeal or giving him notice of the appeal. The petitioner was in possession over the land in dispute on the date of alleged allotment dated 19.06.1984. The land was not vacant, its allotment was illegal and names of the allottees were liable to be deleted and not of the petitioner. In any case, the petitioner is a landless agricultural labour and belongs to Schedule caste, he was given possession over the allotted chak in 2005. Cut off date under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was amended as 25.08.2007 by U.P. Act No. 38 of 2007 as such the name of the petitioner is not liable to be deleted from the land in dispute. Orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Notification of the village under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 22.08.1981. Under Section 9-A of the Act, the consolidation authorities are required to decide right of the parties, as it was on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the consolidation authorities, can decide right on the basis of changes and transaction affecting right or interest of the person recorded in revised record. The claim of the petitioner is not based upon changes or transaction affecting right or interest of the person recorded in revised record. Thus his right has to be decided on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, as held by Division Bench of this Court in Smt. K. Devi Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation and others, 1973 ALJ 395 (DB) and Ram Vriksha Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others, 2005 (99) RD 295. 9. Thus his right has to be decided on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, as held by Division Bench of this Court in Smt. K. Devi Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation and others, 1973 ALJ 395 (DB) and Ram Vriksha Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others, 2005 (99) RD 295. 9. Section 122-B (4-F) was added by U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976, confering right from 30.06.1975, which is quoted below: - Section 122-B (4-F).- Notwithstanding anything in the forgoing sub- sections, where any agricultural labourer belonging to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before June 30, 1975 and the land so occupied together with land , if any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami does not exceed 1.26 hectare (3.125 acre), then no action under this Section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and shall be deemed that he has been admitted as sirdar of that land under Section 195. 10. The cut off date mentioned in this sub-section has been changed as 30.06.1985 by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1986, 03.06.1995 by U.P. Act No. 7 of 1997, 01.05.2002 by U.P. Act No. 11 of 2002 and 25.08.2007 by U.P. Act No. 38 of 2007. By U.P. Act No. 11 of 2002 one material change has also been made that after Section 195, words " and it shall not be necessary for him to institute a suit for declaration of his rights as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights in that land" have been added. This Court in Brahmi Vs. D.M. Muzaffar Nagar, 2002 (3) AWC 1848 held that if the land was granted on patta then provisions of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 will not apply and right to that person would be decided in the terms of patta itself. As such the arguments that the petitioner is a landless agricultural labour and belongs to Schedule caste, he was given possession over the allotted chak in 2005 as such his right has been matured under the amended provisions of Section 122-B (4-F) is not liable to be accepted. 11. As such the arguments that the petitioner is a landless agricultural labour and belongs to Schedule caste, he was given possession over the allotted chak in 2005 as such his right has been matured under the amended provisions of Section 122-B (4-F) is not liable to be accepted. 11. By the order dated 13.8.2015 the petitioner was granted time to file evidence to prove his possession on 30.6.1985 as claimed by his father in his objection. In compliance of the aforesaid order the petitioner has filed the statement of witnesses examined by his father before the Consolidation Officer namely Rajendra Singh, Lal Sigh, Prem Singh and Phool Singh. In which Rajendra Singh was Pradhan and Lal Singh was the Member of Land Management Committee. It may be mentioned that the Land Management committee through its resolution dated 19.6.1984 allotted an area of 10-10-0 bigha of plot no. 1230 and again through its resolution dated 23.11.1988 allotted an area of 7-9-0 bigha of plot no. 1230 while the total area on plot no. 1230 was 10-17-0 bigha. If the Pradhan himself allotted the land of an area of 10-10-0 bigha on 19.6.1984 then the statement of Pradhan as well as Member of Land Management Committee that Phool Singh , father of the petitioner was in possession over an area of 2-5-0 bigha of plot no. 1230, is contrary to their own conduct and thus the statements are merely a procured collusive statements and no reliance can be placed on it. The petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that his father was in possession over the land in dispute before 30.6.1985. Thus the order of Consolidation Officer conferring right to the petitioner only on the basis of oral evidence was not liable to be accepted and it has been rightly set aside by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 12. So far as the finding recorded by respondents- 1 and 2 that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to confer right under Section 122 B (4 F) of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 is concerned, it is incorrect. A perusal of Section shows that section originally added gives a presumption that the person in occupation who falls in the category as enumerated shall be deemed to be admitted as sirdar. A perusal of Section shows that section originally added gives a presumption that the person in occupation who falls in the category as enumerated shall be deemed to be admitted as sirdar. Section is further amended by UP Act No. 11 of 2002 and it has been further clarified that it shall not be necessary for such occupant to institute a suit for declaration of his right as bhumidhar with transferable right in that land. Thus the right is conferred by the statute and not by any authority. If the right is proved then it is well within the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to record the name of any person. In this case right of the petitioner is not proved. Inasmuch as no documentary evidence has been filed to prove his possession while the oral evidence was contradictory of the resolution passed by the Land Management Committee. Thus no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.