JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, for respondent-4. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 16.8.2010, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 12.8.2011 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.10.2014 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The dispute relates to plot 2851 (area 0.190 hectare) of village Jalalabad, pargana Shadiabad, district Ghazipur. It is alleged by the petitioners that in basic consolidation records, plot 2851 (area 0.190 hectare) was recorded in the name of Ram Narain son of Marchhu along with other plots, which was recorded in his name in CH Form-11 and CH Form-23. Ram Kewal (petitioner-1) purchased plot Nos. 2851 (area 9 biswa) and 2852 (area 2 biswa) from Ram Narain through sale deed dated 23.5.2003 and his name was mutated by order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 28.6.2003. Rajdev (petitioner-2) purchased an area of 1 biswa 5 dhur of plot 2851 from Ram Narain and his name was mutated by order dated 10.7.2002. Tena (petitioner-3) purchased an area of 1 biswa of plot 2851 from Ram Narain and his name was mutated by order dated 30.9.2002. Indrawati (petitioner-4) purchased an area of 15 dhur of plot 2851 from Ram Narain and her name was mutated by order dated 30.4.2003. Thereafter, they raised pucca construction over it. 3. On the basis of report of the Consolidator, Assistant Consolidation Officer registered Case No. 1787 under section 9-A of the Act and forwarded it to Consolidation Officer for decision on 7.8.2010. The Consolidation Officer by ex-parte dated 16.8.2010 directed for deleting the names of the petitioners from the land in dispute, without issuing notice and without giving opportunity of hearing. On coming to know about this order, the petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1766) along with delay condonation application from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 12.8.2001, dismissed the appeal, without considering any of the grounds raised in the appeal. 4. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. D20141429001040) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 12.8.2001, dismissed the appeal, without considering any of the grounds raised in the appeal. 4. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. D20141429001040) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 22.10.2014, held that the land in dispute was recorded as pokhari in previous consolidation record and also in basic consolidation record. No objection was filed by any one claiming any right over it as such right has become barred under section 11-A of the Act. Otherwise also in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Hindi Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi 2001 (92) RD 689 (SC), no right can be claimed by any person over talab land. On these findings he dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in CH Form-2-A, total area of plot 2851 was recorded as 0.202 hectare out of which an area 0.012 hectare was found pokhari and remaining area of 0.190 hectare was found in cultivation of Ram Narain and was recorded as such. In CH Form-11 and CH Form-23 also plot 2851 (area 0.190 hectare) was recorded in the name of Ram Narain. State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha did not file any objection under section 9-A of the Act, within time. The land in dispute was plane agricultural land on the spot, without storage of water or in the shape of tank. The petitioners bona fide relied upon consolidation records and believed that the land in dispute was bhumidhari holdings of Ram Narain and purchased it from him in the year 2003 through different sale deeds after paying valuable considerations. Their names were also mutated in consolidation records by order of Assistant Consolidation Officer in the year 2003. Thereafter, they raised permanent constructions over it after investing huge amounts. Now by an ex-parte and cryptic orders, their names have been directed to deleted, in the case registered on the alleged report of the Consolidator. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu and others2006 (45) AIC 945 : AIR 2006 SC 2893 , in which it has been held that "concededly, the water bodies are required to be retained. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu and others2006 (45) AIC 945 : AIR 2006 SC 2893 , in which it has been held that "concededly, the water bodies are required to be retained. Such requirement is envisaged not only in view of the fact that the right to water as also quality life are envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also in view of the fact that the same has been recognised in Articles 47 and 48-A of the Constitution of India. Article 51-A of the Constitution of India furthermore makes a fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife. "But in the case at hand must be judged having regard to the aforementioned principles in mind. The respondents categorically denied and disputed that there is any water shortage in the village. The village is situated on both sides of the National Highway. It is situated near a sea and having five water tanks in or around therein. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that there had been acute water shortage in the village, as was submitted by Ms. Malhotra. The tank in question is not a natural tank. Only rain water could be collected in it. It has been a dumping ground for a long time. Although there is no material on record to show as to since when it had fallen in disuse, indisputably the tank in question is in a dilapidated condition for a long time and has been used as a dumping yard and sewage collection pond. In our opinion, thus, it is not a case where we should direct its resurrection." 6. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. Standing Counsel has produced CH Form-41 and 45 of previous consolidation, in which plot 2851 (area 15 biswa 19 dhur) was recorded as pokhari land. Same entry remained in basic consolidation record of present consolidation. A perusal of CH Form-11 filed as (Annexure-4) of Ram Narain shows that plots 2902 Sa (area 0.101 hectare), 2851 Sa (area 0.190 hectare) and 2852/1 Sa (area 0.063 hectare) were written after two plots, in it. Although total area of these three plots comes to 0.354 hectare but total area of these three plots were written as 0.253 hectare. A perusal of CH Form-11 filed as (Annexure-4) of Ram Narain shows that plots 2902 Sa (area 0.101 hectare), 2851 Sa (area 0.190 hectare) and 2852/1 Sa (area 0.063 hectare) were written after two plots, in it. Although total area of these three plots comes to 0.354 hectare but total area of these three plots were written as 0.253 hectare. Land Revenue of previous two plots of which area was 0.270 hectare was noted as Rs. 13.37 but land revenue of three subsequent plots of which area was 0.354 hectare was noted as Rs. 4.00/-. Plot 2851 was came in the name of Ram Narain from 1389 F corresponding to 1981. The petitioners have filed CH Form-23 of Ram Narain but in this CH Form-23, chak allotted to Ram Narain was not shown. Thus the petitioners by filing incomplete paper, tried to mislead the Court. Thus entry of plot 2851 in the khata of Ram Narain was apparent forgery. The petitioners neither in memorandum of appeal or revision could give any explanation that how Ram Narain acquired right over Pokhari land. Findings of Deputy Director of Consolidation that in basic consolidation record entire area of plot 2851 was recorded as pokhari land does not suffer from any illegality. 7. Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi 2001 (92) RD 689 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 3215 , held that it is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. In Jag-pal Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2011 SC 1123 , Apex Court directed all the State Governments in the country to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. In Jag-pal Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2011 SC 1123 , Apex Court directed all the State Governments in the country to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India were directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. It has also been held that long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Following aforesaid directions, Division Bench of this Court in, Om Prakash Verma v. State of U.P. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6472 (M/B) (PIL) of 2012, vide order dated 7.8.2012, directed for ejectment of unauthorized occupants and restoring/maintaining talab, land in U.P. State Government was also directed to constitute State/District Level Committees for the purposes of restoring talab land in U.P. as they existed on 1.7.1952. 8. It has been specifically held by Supreme Court in Jagat Pal's case (Supra) that long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ C No. 54062 of 2013, Jagat Narain and 15 others v. State of U.P. and others, before which in view of the conflicting judgments of this Court that after order of eviction under section 122-B of the Act, whether this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has jurisdiction to regularize illegal occupation after charging some amount, came for consideration and the Division Bench by order dated 9.2.2015, considering all the statutory provisions and judgments of Supreme Court on the subject, answered the reference and held that illegal occupation over State/Gaon Sabha land cannot be regularized by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in absence of any statutory provision. In view of above no relief can be granted to the petitioners on the ground that they have raised construction. In view of above no relief can be granted to the petitioners on the ground that they have raised construction. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.