JUDGMENT Shabihul Hasnain, J. – Heard Sri B.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Azad Khan for opposite party no.3, Gaonsabha and learned Standing Counsel for State. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.5.2015, Annexure-1, and proceedings under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur. 3. As per the given facts the dispute in the instant petition relates to Old Plot No. 1054M Area 6 Bigha, 12 Biswa, the new number of which is 968-Kha which was recorded as Asami Grove of the father of the petitioners. The said land shall hereinafter be referred as the land in dispute. From 1922-1952 the land in dispute was recorded in the name of one Nageshwar Singh as Bagh Malikan and in pursuance to the order passed by the consolidation authorities in proceedings undertaken between the father of the petitioners Dev Nath Dubey and one Shitla Prasad, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the petitioners. Even in 1359 fasli the land in dispute is recorded in the name of the father of the petitioners as Asami and a suit filed under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in short the Act, by one Shitla Prasad against the father of the petitioners Dev Nath was also dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer Sultanpur by order dated 16.11.2012. The land in dispute was recorded as bhumidhari in the name of the father of the petitioners in 1415-1420 fasli and after his death the petitioners are recorded over the land in dispute. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the same has been preferred against the interlocutory order dated 20.05.2015, passed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur, whereby he has simply issued notices to the petitioners and has proposed to decide the controversy involved and the final orders are yet to be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners instead of rebutting the preliminary objection raised, has argued the matter on merit and has submitted that twice the proceedings in respect of the land in dispute have culminated in his favour and he is being unnecessary dragged in a fresh round of litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners instead of rebutting the preliminary objection raised, has argued the matter on merit and has submitted that twice the proceedings in respect of the land in dispute have culminated in his favour and he is being unnecessary dragged in a fresh round of litigation. The counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the court towards the order dated 17.08.1991 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur in Case No. 3445, Sheetla v. Dev Nath, contained as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition thereby deciding the revision in terms of compromise entered into between one Sheetla Prasad and father of the petitioners Dev Nath. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn attention of the court towards Annexure No.12 to the writ petition which is an order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Sultanpur in proceedings under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, Faya Nath Dubey and others v. Dev Nath Dubey, whereby the suit filed by Faya Nath Dubey against the father of the petitioners Dev Nath Dubey in respect of the land in dispute was dismissed for want of prosecution. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the aforesaid proceedings decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 17.08.1991 and by the Sub Divisional Officer Sadar District-Sultanpur on 16.11.2012 were relating to the land in dispute, hence the present proceedings pending before the opposite party No.1 is the abuse of the process of law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the land in dispute is his grove land and it has never been pond and even in the khatauni of 1359 falsi (Annexure No. 3) Plot No. 1054M Area 6 Bigha, 12 Biswa, is recorded in the name of the father of the petitioners Late Dev Nath. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that on the basis of the earlier orders passed by the consolidation authorities, the land in dispute is recorded in the name of the father of the petitioners Dev Nath as bhumidhar with transferable rights in khatauni of 1415-1420 fasli (Annexure No. 10). 9. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that on the basis of the earlier orders passed by the consolidation authorities, the land in dispute is recorded in the name of the father of the petitioners Dev Nath as bhumidhar with transferable rights in khatauni of 1415-1420 fasli (Annexure No. 10). 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred Annexure No. R.A.-2 to the rejoinder affidavit to substantiate his argument thatAppeal No. 1165, Dev Nath v. Sarkar, was listed on 27.06.1984 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and on the said date order was passed in favour of Dev Nath and the land in dispute was ordered to be recorded in the name the father of the petitioners Dev Nath. 10. Learned standing counsel while rebutting the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners has argued that the land in dispute has always been recorded as pond in 1356 and 1359 fasli. He has also argued that the khatauni of 1359 fasli brought on record by the petitioners as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition is a forged document. He has further argued that there is no record in the Misil Band Register of record room in respect of any Appeal No.1165 allegedly decided on 27.06.1984 in respect of Plot No. 1054 situated in Village-Lohangi, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Sultanpur. He has further argued that F.I.R. vide Case Crime No. 784/1990 under Section 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Sultanpur, was lodged against the Lekhpal who had changed the entry of Plot No. 1054 from pond in the name of father of the petitioners Dev Nath on the basis of the forged order dated 25.07.1984 alleged to have been passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sultanpur, and the father of the petitioners Dev Nath and subsequently charge sheet was submitted against the father of the petitioners Dev Nath and charges have already been framed against him. To strengthen his argument, the learned standing counsel has relied upon paragraphs 4, 5, 11 and 13 of the supplementary counsel affidavit filed on behalf of the State through Sri. Ajay Kumar Tiwari Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Sultanpur. 11. To strengthen his argument, the learned standing counsel has relied upon paragraphs 4, 5, 11 and 13 of the supplementary counsel affidavit filed on behalf of the State through Sri. Ajay Kumar Tiwari Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Sultanpur. 11. The learned standing counsel has also drawn attention of the court towards the Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, the so called khatauni of 1359 fasli relied upon by the petitioners in respect of Plot No.1054 over which the father of the petitioners is recorded as Asami, but in the subsequent khatauni contained as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition he is (father of the petitioners Dev Nath) recorded as bhumidhar of Plot No. 968-Kha (the new number of Plot No.1054) though there is no provision under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by means of which an Asami can be conferred bhumidhari rights. 12. The counsel for the petitioners while opposing the submissions made by the learned standing counsel has argued that the entry has been made in favour of the father of the petitioners at the strength of the orders passed by the consolidation authorities and all the entries are genuine entries and as such the proceedings under taken vide order impugned is completely without jurisdiction. 13. So far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the present proceedings pending before the opposite party No.1 is not maintainable and the orders impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law is concerned, suffice it to observe that the earlier proceedings culminated in favour of the father of the petitioners were at the behest of the private opposite parties in respect of the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha and the State Government but the proceedings being undertaken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order impugned has arisen in pursuance to the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Sadar, Sultanpur and the order of the District Magistrate Sultanpur dated 27.12.2013, as such the orders passed in the earlier proceedings will have no binding effect upon the rights of the State Government over the land in dispute. 14. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to paragraph-3 of the rejoinder affidavit has vehemently argued that in the extract of Misil Band Register and Case Diary dated 27.06.1984 where there is a description of Case No. 1165, Dev Nath v. State, decided on 27.06.1984 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation Sultanpur contained as Annexure No. R.A. R.A. 1, 2 and 4 and as such the entry in the name of father of the petitioners Dev Nath is a genuine entry. The learned standing counsel on the other hand has drawn attention of the court towards paragraph-3 of the supplementary counter affidavit in which the contents of paragraph-3 of the rejoinder affidavit has been denied and it has been specifically averred that the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Case Diary and misil band registered filed by the petitioners as R.A. 1, 2 and 4 are forged document and the said averment was never denied by the petitioners. As such the entry relied upon by the petitioners does not appears to be genuine. 15. The counsel for the petitioners has failed to show any provision of law under which bhumidhari rights can be conferred upon an Asami, as such even as per the case of the petitioners no bhumidhari rights can be conferred upon them. Hence there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. The writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 16. However, before parting with the judgment it is observed that since the proceedings are pending adjudication before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, who has simply issued notices to the petitioners to enquire regarding genuineness of the entries made in favour of the father of the petitioners and the petitioners have already appeared in the said proceedings, the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall decide the proceedings in accordance with law expeditiously after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Petition Dismissed.