JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Mr. Shri Kant, Advocate, for petitioner and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondents though the case has been called in revised. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has arisen from orders passed by Revenue Authorities in Consolidation proceedings. 3. The dispute relates to Khata No. 30, 31, 32 and 150. 4. Petitioner claims that he is recorded as exclusive Bhumidhar of Khata No. 32 in basic Khatauni. In respect to Khata No. 150, he is recorded in basic Khatauni as exclusive Sirdar but in respect to Khata No. 30, he is recorded as co-bhumidhar alongwith respondents 4 to 6 and husband of respondent 7, while in Khata No. 31, petitioner and husband of respondent 7 are recorded as co tenure holders as Bhumidhar. 5. When consolidation proceedings commenced, respondents 4 and 5 and husband of respondent 7 as also respondent 8 did not file any objection. 6. Respondent 6, however, filed an objection in respect to Khata No. 30 in which he was a co-bhumidhar with petitioner and respondents 4, 5 and husband of respondent 7. 7. Respondent 9, Surya Pratap Singh, also filed an objection under Section 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1953”) alleging that he purchased Plots No. 637, 634, 639, 640, 586, 611 and 641 which comprised Khata No. 30 through sale-deed dated 7.9.1964 executed by Smt. Talashi, wife of Raghubar alias Raghunandan. 8. A third objection was filed by Ram Bali, father of respondents 11 and 12, stating that he has purchased Plot No. 750 of Khata No. 150 on 7.9.1954 from Smt. Talashi. He claimed for entry of his name in revenue record as bhumidhar. 9. A fourth objection was filed by Smt. Kailashi, respondent 10, alleging that Smt. Talashi had executed a sale-deed dated 11.9.1964 in respect to Plots No. 675, 676 and 674 of Khata No. 150. 10. Petitioner opposed claim of respondent 9 and 10 on the ground that Smt. Talashi was an illiterate old lady having lost equilibrium of her brain about two months prior to her death and alleged sale-deeds are vitiated on account of fraud and undue influence. 10. Petitioner opposed claim of respondent 9 and 10 on the ground that Smt. Talashi was an illiterate old lady having lost equilibrium of her brain about two months prior to her death and alleged sale-deeds are vitiated on account of fraud and undue influence. He said that Smt. Talashi died in September without leaving any issue and name of petitioner was rightly mutated in revenue record since he was son of sister of husband of Smt. Talashi. 11. In respect to Plot No. 619 of Khata No. 32, respondent 13 claimed to be Sirdar on the basis of being sub-tenant. His name was entered as sub-tenant in 1365 fasali. One Udai Baharur Singh also claimed to be Sirdar of Plot No. 590 of Khata No. 32 on the ground of sub-tenancy. Petitioner disputed claim of respondent 13 and Udai Bahadur Singh, both. 12. Co-tenure holders of Khata No. 31 and 32 did not contest the matter. They also did not deny relationship of petitioner with Smt. Talashi or her husband. 13. However, respondent 6, Deo Saran, admitted in his objection that he was in possession alongwith recorded co-tenure holders. 14. Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as “CO”) formulated following issues: ^^1& lw;Z izrki flag vkjkth futkbZ ds Hkwfe/kj cSukes ds vk/kkj ij gS\^^ “1. Whether on the basis of the sale-deed, Surya Pratap Singh is Bhoomidhar of the land in question?” ^^2& D;k nqxkZ nRr eq0 rqylh ds okfjl gSa\^^ “2. Whether Durga Dutt is successor of Tulsi?” ^^3& D;k oklnso vkfn eq0 rqylh ds okfjl gSa\^^ “3. Whether Vasdev and others are successors of Tulsi?” ^^4& D;k dSyk'kh cSukesa ds vk/kkj ij Hkwfe/kj gS\^^ “4. Whether on the basis of the sale-deed, Kailashi is Bhoomidhar?” ^^5& D;k f'ko lkxj cSukes ds vk/kkj ij Hkwfe/kj gS\^^ “5. Whether on the basis of the sale-deed, Shiv Sagar is Bhoomidhar?” ^^6& D;k mn; cgknqj vkfn vkjkth ua0 590 ds 'khjnkj gS\^^ “6. Whether Udai Bahadur and others are Sirdar of plot No. 590?” ^^6,& D;k goynkj vkjkth ua 755 rFkk 619 ds 'khjnkj gSa\^^ ¼okn fcUnq 6 dh dze la[;k iqujko`Rr vr% U;k;ky; }kjk 6, ds :i esa vafdr½ “6A. Whether Hawaldar is Sirdar of plot No. 755 and 619?” (Sl.No. of issue 6 repeated hence marked as 6A by Court) (English Translation by Court) 15. Whether Hawaldar is Sirdar of plot No. 755 and 619?” (Sl.No. of issue 6 repeated hence marked as 6A by Court) (English Translation by Court) 15. Issues 2 and 3 were taken together and it held that Durga Dutt Ojha (petitioner hereat) did not adduce any evidence to show his relationship or that he was legal heir of Smt. Talashi (mentioned in the order as Tulsi). Hence, issue 2 was answered against petitioner. Similarly issue 3 was also answered against Basudeo, husband of respondent 7. Issues 1, 4 and 5 were taken together and it was held that on the basis of alleged sale-deeds, no rights can be claimed and sale-deeds appear to be forged and fictitious 16. Similarly it was also held that Udai Bahadur has no right over Plot No. 590 hence issue 6 returned against Udai Bahadur and others. Issue 6 A was answered in favour of Havaldar Singh, respondent 13, and CO held that his possession as Asami must be accepted. It, accordingly, directed vide order dated 25.1.1968 that in Khata No. 31, name of Talashi and petitioner be deleted and in respect to aforesaid arazi, Gram Sabha’s name shall be entered. 17. A large number of appeals were preferred before Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as “SOC”) which came to be decided by Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as “ASOC”). It dismissed all 33 appeals vide order dated 27.1.1969 but with some modification of order passed by CO and directed as under: “For the reasons indicated above all these 33 appeals have been dismissed but the order of the Court has been modified and vested the land of Khata No. 15 instead of Khata No. 16 the entries of Khata No. 156 should continue in favour of Durga Datta and name of Mst. Talashi has been expunged from Khata No. 30 and 31 in favour of her cotenants that is Khata No. 31 in favour of Ram Deo and in respect of Khata No. 30 her name has been expunged in favour of Ram Deo so far. Ram Surat and Basdeo and the land of Khata No. 32 and 150 have been vested in the S.B. and the order of the C.O. has been confirmed in respect of these 2 khatas. Amaldaramad be made accordingly. This order shall govern in these 33 appeals. Ram Surat and Basdeo and the land of Khata No. 32 and 150 have been vested in the S.B. and the order of the C.O. has been confirmed in respect of these 2 khatas. Amaldaramad be made accordingly. This order shall govern in these 33 appeals. Let a copy of the order be placed on each file” 18. A number of revisions then were filed by petitioner and others before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as “DDC”). All the revisions have been dismissed vide order dated 23.1.1971. Hence, this writ petition. 19. With respect to claim of petitioner, DDC has observed as under: “As regards the claim of Durgadatt I may mention that there is no reliable evidence on record to prove that he is legal heir of Smt. Talasi and thus his claim, too, has rightly been dismissed by lower Courts. I further hold that the order passed by ASOC that interest of Smt. Talasi in Khatas Nos. 30 and 31 has passed to her co-tenants by survivorship is also quite just and proper. As Smt. Talasi had died in 1964 and the village was notified under Section 4(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act in 1966, none perfected rights over the land in dispute on the basis of possession against Gaon Sabha after death of Smt. Talasi. I hold that land of Khatas Nos. 32 and 150 has rightly been ordered by the Courts below to be entered in the name of Gaon Sabha and I do not find any valid ground to interfere with their concurrent findings.” The result is that all these revisions fail and are dismissed. Let this order be kept on the file of revision No. 2313/1283 and it shall also govern nineteen other revisions mentioned above.” 20. Counsel for petitioner submitted that Gaon Sabha has neither filed any objection nor contested the matter, therefore, it is not open to Consolidation authorities to record a finding with respect to right or title of Gaon Sabha. He urged that other objectors, who claimed their rights on the basis of alleged sale-deeds executed by Smt. Talashi, which were declared forged and fictitious by consolidation authorities, brought the matter before this Court in Writ Petition (Writ-B) No. 3524 of 1971 (Sheo Sagar and others v. Gaon Sabha and others) and the same has already been dismissed in default vide order dated 2.5.2007. Hence claim of respondents based on various sale-deeds allegedly executed by Smt. Talashi is bound to fail. 21. I find that Consolidation authorities have held that Smt. Talashi died in 1964 and consolidation proceedings were notified in 1966, hence heirs or persons whose names were mutated had not perfected their title or right over land in dispute on the basis of possession and that land would go to Gaon Sabha. To this extent, impugned orders are illegal, inasmuch Gaon Sabha never filed any objection and never contested the matter. Therefore, direction to remove name of petitioner from relevant Khatas and to enter name of Gaon Sabha is bad in law and cannot sustain. The direction in this regard are in respect to Khata No. 32 and 150. I find submission of learned counsel for petitioner to this extent correct. 22. In Salik Ram v. R.S. Rawat, Director of Consolidation and others, 1974 RD 97, name of Salik Ram was recorded in respect to Khata No. 10A as grove holder. In the basic year also, his name was recorded over this land. DDC held that petitioner Salik Ram or other respondents have no right in that land and it is vested in Gaon Sabha. Court held that Gaon Sabha neither filed any objection nor contested the matter, hence, it has lost any claim over disputed land and DDC has no jurisdiction to give a finding in favour of a third party, i.e. Gaon Sabha, who has lost its rights to raise objection having not been filed in time, by virtue of Section 11-A of Act, 1953. 23. A Division Bench judgment in Gram Sabha, Kudra v. Noor Mohd. Khan, 1974 RD 350, is again a judgment reiterating the aforesaid view. It has said that no person, who has not filed an objection under Section 9 regarding claim to land, partition of joint holding and valuation of plots, threes, wells and other improvements, etc., within the period prescribed therefor, shall be permitted to raise such an objection, nor shall any such objection be heard at any subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings. Court said that the words “at any subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings” are so wide so as to cover up proceedings under Section 48 of Act, 1953. Court said that the words “at any subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings” are so wide so as to cover up proceedings under Section 48 of Act, 1953. Having said so, Court further held : “As a result of this bar contained in Section 11-A the Gaon Sabha which admittedly had not filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act within the prescribed time, could not be permitted to file an objection claiming right or title to these plots before the Deputy Director of Consolidation nor could the Gaon Sabha be heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on such an objection. It could not be the intention of the Legislature that the policy laid down by it under Section 11-A of the Act should be defeated by exercise of suo motu powers by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48. It will be contrary to all established canons of interpretation of statutes to accept the argument that what could not be achieved by the Gaon Sabha by a belated objection claiming title to this land before the Deputy Director of consolidation due to the bar of Section 11-A of the Act could be achieved by the Deputy Director of Consolidation through exercise of his suo motu power under Section 48. ... On the principle of harmonious construction we are of the view that the scope of power conferred by Section 48 on the Deputy Director of Consolidation to adjudicate upon the regularity, correctness or legality of an order passed by a subordinate consolidation authority must remain confined to matters between the parties before the consolidation authorities and this power cannot extend to persons who are not parties to the consolidation proceedings at any stage or to complete strangers or outsiders to these proceedings. In that view of the matter we agree with the learned Single Judge in the view that the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to hold that the land in dispute had become vested in Gaon Sabha and that the name of Gaon Sabha should be substituted in place of Noor Mohd. Khan and others.” 24. In that view of the matter we agree with the learned Single Judge in the view that the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to hold that the land in dispute had become vested in Gaon Sabha and that the name of Gaon Sabha should be substituted in place of Noor Mohd. Khan and others.” 24. In Brij Lal v. State of U.P., 1976 RD 318, again the above exposition of law was reiterated by observing: “I, therefore, hold that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed a manifest error of law in directing that the name of Gaon Sabha, opposite party No. 4 should be entered in the revenue records against the disputed plot and consequently the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated March 11, 1969 is liable to be quashed to this extent.” 25. Learned Standing Counsel sought to argue that there is an amendment by addition of Section 11-C by U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1974”), but I find that this provision is a subsequent insertion and not retrospective. This question has also been negatived in Brij Lal v. State of U.P. (supra). 26. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.1.1968, insofar as direction has been issued for deletion of name of petitioner and making entry of name of Gaon Sabha, and the appellate and revisional orders dated 27.1.1969 and 23.1.1971 respectively, to the same extent, are hereby set aside. 27. No costs.