JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri B.N. Singh for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of District Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11.1.2005 by which he has held that the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.8.1987 was an ex-parte order, accordingly, it was recalled and old plot nos. 82 area 1.20 acre and 98 area 2.62 acre of village Alikhanpur, pargana Haveli, district Jaunpur was directed to be recorded as banjar land. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interest of people of the village, the Land Management Committee has allotted the land in disputed to Shitla Devi, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chaukia, Jaunpur. On the basis of allotment made by the Land Management Committee, the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 28.11.1969 passed in Case No. 735 directed for recording name of Shitla Devi, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chaukia, Jaunpur as sirdar. This entry was continued in basic consolidation year and no one filed any objection against it. Since Shitla Devi, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chaukia, Jaunpur was not in existence as such the Consolidation Committee moved an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for reserving the land in disputed as the land reserved for school instead of Shitla Devi, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chaukia, Jaunpur. On that application the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 23.8.1987 directed for recording the land as reserved for school of the village. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any illegality but it has been illegally recalled by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 11.1.2005. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Gaon Samaj, Didhauni v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1969 RD page 5 in which it has been held that finality attached under Section 9 B (3) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 does not affect the jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 . He submits that order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was well within the jurisdiction. In any case the order was passed on merit and District Deputy Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to recall that order. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 5. He submits that order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was well within the jurisdiction. In any case the order was passed on merit and District Deputy Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to recall that order. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 5. A perusal of khatauni 1376 F filed along with counter affidavit shows that land in disputed was record as banjar land. This khatauni also contains an endorsement of the alleged order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 28.11.1969 by which the land in disputed was directed to be record in the name of Shitla Devi, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chaukia, Jaunpur as sirdar. Admittedly Shitla Devi, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chaukia, Jaunpur was not in existence. It is also proved from the application moved by the Consolidation Committee of the village in which it has been mention that Shitla Devi, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chaukia, Jaunpur was not in existence. Thus there was no occasion for allotment of the land in disputed to Shitla Devi, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chaukia, Jaunpur i.e. a non existent person by the Land Management Committee and entry in this respect is clearly a forged entry as held by District Deputy Director of Consolidation. 6. So far as the jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities is concerned, the Consolidation Authorities have jurisdiction over the land included in consolidation operation. The word "Consolidation" has been defined under Section 3 (2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 :- ["Consolidation means re-arrangement of holdings in a unit amongst several tenure holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact]" Thus the Consolidation Authorities have jurisdiction in respect of the land of tenure holders. It is only in exceptional circumstances, banjar land can be included in consolidation operation under Section 19 A of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 . It is not a case of the petitioner that the land was included in consolidation in exercise of powers under Section 19 A (2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 . Thus the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of banjar land and the order of District Deputy Director of Consolidation recalling the alleged order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.8.1987 does not suffer from any illegality. Thus the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of banjar land and the order of District Deputy Director of Consolidation recalling the alleged order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.8.1987 does not suffer from any illegality. In any case Gaon Sabha and State of UP have filed the application for recalling the aforesaid order on the ground that order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. Under Section 48 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, it is mandatory for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to give an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person. 7. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that no one filed any objection against basic consolidation year entry during consolidation is concerned, it has been found by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation that by making forgery an endorsement has been made in the khatauni for recording name of Shitla Devi, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chaukia, Jaunpur over the land in disputed. This finding could not be challenged by the petitioner. Inasmuch as admittedly Shitla Devi, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chaukia, Jaunpur was never in existence which has also proved by the application moved by the Land Management Committee. Thus entry being a forged entry can neither be legalised nor it can be given any status merely because of objection under Section 9 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, was not filed. 8. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.