JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 10.4.2015 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.9.2015. 3. By the impugned order, the Settlement Officer Consolidation found that without registering any case, the Assistant Consolidation Officer directed for recording name of Akhtar Ahmad over an area of 0.011 hectare of plot no. 113 of village Lohti, Tappa Kadar, Distt. Basti. The record of the case is not available in the record room. Thus it has been held that it is merely a forgery in the khatauni. Accordingly the order dated 19.7.1996 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was set aside. Consequently the order of Consolidation Officer by which name of the petitioner has been mutated in respect of plot no. 113 was also set aside. The revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that recorded tenure holder Ashik Ali executed an unregistered sale deed in respect of an area of 0.011 hectare of plot no. 113 and on its basis name of the transferee Ali Ahmad was directed to be recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Ashik Ali never challenged the order during his life time. The order was challenged by his son in the appeal on 16.8.2014. There was no reason for condoning of inordinate delay in filing the appeal. In the meantime, the transferee namely Ali Ahmad and others executed a sale deed dated 13.6.2007 in respect of his entire chak including the area of plot no. 113. On the basis of sale deed dated 13.6.2007 name of the petitioner has also been recorded over the land in dispute. Since chak carvation proceeding has been completed, therefore, it is not liable to be believed that Ashik Ali and his son had no knowledge of the transfer or the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The delay was not liable to be condoned but the appeal has been illegally allowed. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. 6. Admittedly, the consolidation proceeding was cancelled by notification under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore neither there was delivery of possession over new chak nor anything has been done. Total area of plot no 113 was 7 aire. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. 6. Admittedly, the consolidation proceeding was cancelled by notification under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore neither there was delivery of possession over new chak nor anything has been done. Total area of plot no 113 was 7 aire. Although it is alleged that transfer in favour of Ali Ahmad was made of an area of 0.011 hectare i.e. 11 aire. The sale deed was un-registered document. It is alleged in the memorandum of appeal that the land in dispute situated by the side of PWD road and having commercial value. Thus its valuation was not less than Rs. 100/- and its registration was necessary. The petitioner has given sale consideration of Rs. 1,42,000/- in which the area of plot no. 113 was also included. 7. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that while setting aside the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the matter ought to have been remanded to the Consolidation Officer for trial of the dispute on merit but the Settlement Officer Consolidation has not remanded the matter. 8. I have considered the argument of the counsel for the petitioner in this respect also. The Settlement Officer Consolidation found that amaldaramad made in the khatauni is merely a forgery. There was neither any objection nor it was registered and also no order was passed on it. Thus there was no question of remand. 9. The petitioner claims that he is bona fide transferee of valuable consideration. Suffice to say that original tenure holder has not executed any sale deed to the petitioner as such no right can be claimed against him. 10. The writ petition has not merit and it is dismissed.