JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri A.N. Srivastava, holding brief of Smt. Neelam Pandey, for the petitioner and Sri Ashwani Kumar Sachan, for respondents-2 and 3. Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 12.09.1988 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.07.2016, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The dispute related to the land recorded in basic consolidation year khata 176 (total area 10 bigha 16 biswansi) of the village Sirora Salempur, pargana Loni, district Ghaziabad, which was recorded in the names of Vijay Pal Singh and Jaipal Singh, sons of Buddhan (respondents-2 and 3) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 12.09.1988 directed for partition of the land recorded in the aforesaid khata between recorded tenure holders. CH Forms-11 and 23 were prepared accordingly and separate chaks were carved out, in the names of the respondents. 4. Brahm Prakash (the petitioner), Shri Bhagwan, Jai Bhagwan, Bhagat Singh, Brahmpal Singh and Vikas filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 69/30) on 22.10.2013, along with a delay condonation application from aforesaid order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by an ex parte order dated 30.03.2015 condoned the delay in filing the appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside order dated 12.09.1988 and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer for deciding the dispute after giving opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties. 5. The respondents filed an application dated 30.03.2015, for recall of the aforesaid order. However due to delay in disposal of the recall application, they filed a time barred revision (registered as Revision No. 42) on 28.04.2016, against the aforesaid order, along with a delay condonation application. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by his order dated 12.07.2016, held that in khatauni 1360 F, 1375 F-1377 F, 1378 F-1380 F and 1381 F-1383 F, land in dispute was recorded in the name of Buddhan, son of Shibban, resident of village Sirora Salempur. Khatauni 1381 F-1383 F contained an amaldaramad of the names of the respondents as sons and heirs of Buddhan. In khatauni 1356 F, some of disputed land was recorded in the name of Buddhan son of Shibban, caste 'Gurjar', resident of village Sirora Salempur. Khatauni 1381 F-1383 F contained an amaldaramad of the names of the respondents as sons and heirs of Buddhan. In khatauni 1356 F, some of disputed land was recorded in the name of Buddhan son of Shibban, caste 'Gurjar', resident of village Sirora Salempur. Buddhan, son of Shibban, caste 'Gurjar', resident of village Sirora Salempur obtained bhumidahri certificate also of the disputed land. In khatauni of village Gokulpur of the year 1964-65, name of Dalle son of Buddhan caste 'Brahmin' was recorded. From these documents, it is proved that the appellants were 'Brahmin' by caste and residents of village Roza Yakutpur, pargana Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar while disputed land belonged to Buddhan, son of Shibban, caste 'Gurjar', resident of village Sirora Salempur, pargana Loni, district Ghaziabad. The appellants, who are 'Brahmin' by caste were not sons of Buddhan, tenure holder of disputed land, who was by caste 'Gurjar'. Settlement Officer, Consolidation without examining evidence on record had illegally allowed the appeal condoning inordinate delay. On these findings the revision was allowed, order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.03.2015 was set aside and order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 12.09.1988 was maintained. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by only one of the appellant out of six appellants. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that by making forgery in consolidation records, the names of the respondents were recorded, deleting the name of Buddhan, son of Shibban. From the report of Revenue Record Keeper dated 22.08.2016, it is proved that Case No. 567 of 1988 decided on 12.09.1988 by Assistant Consolidation Officer was not recorded in 'goswara' register. The order dated 12.09.1988 and record relating to this case is not available anywhere. The petitioner and other appellants, who were heirs of Buddhan, son of Sibban, remained in possession of the disputed land. The appellants were residing in another village Roza Yakutpur as such CH Forms-5 and 23 were not served upon them. Due to rumour, when they obtained copy of CH Form-23 on 17.10.2013, then the appeal was filed. Settlement Officer Consolidation was satisfied with cause of delay and condoned the delay. So far as merit of the case is concerned, a highly disputed question of fact was involved, which required trial as well as oral evidence. Settlement Officer, Consolidation, therefore, remanded the case to Consolidation Officer for recording evidence and deciding the dispute. Settlement Officer Consolidation was satisfied with cause of delay and condoned the delay. So far as merit of the case is concerned, a highly disputed question of fact was involved, which required trial as well as oral evidence. Settlement Officer, Consolidation, therefore, remanded the case to Consolidation Officer for recording evidence and deciding the dispute. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally interfered in the matter and without giving opportunity of evidence, he has decided complicated question of fact. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. In the memorandum of appeal, the appellants have given their address as Roza Yakutpur, pargana Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar and admittedly they belonged to 'Brahmin' caste. The disputed land was recorded in the name of Buddhan, son of Shibban, prior to consolidation operation in the village. The names of the respondents were recorded in khatauni 1381 F-1383 F, as the sons and heirs of Buddhan. In basic consolidation record, the names of respondents were continuing. Assistant Consolidation Officer at the time of revision of record under Section 7 of the Act, by order dated 12.09.1988, held share of respondents-2 and 3 as 1/2 each. Even if the order dated 12.09.1988 was not there, the names of the respondents would jointly continued. Thus by order dated 12.09.1988, merely partition between recorded co-sharers was done. This was not an order deciding title of any person. Neither Buddhan, son of Shibban nor the petitioner and other appellants were recorded in basic consolidation record as such they were required to file an objection under Section 9 of the Act, for recording their names over disputed land. In the absence of any objection under Section 9 of the Act, their right, if any, is barred under Section 11-A of the Act. The appeal on their behalf was not maintainable. 8. There is dispute between the parties as to whether disputed land was property of Buddhan, son of Shibban, caste 'Brahmin', resident of village Roza Yakutpur, pargana Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar as claimed by the appellants or it belonged to Buddhan, son of Shibban, caste 'Gurjar', resident of village Sirora Salempur, parnaga Loni, district Ghaziabad as claimed by the respondents. There is dispute between the parties as to whether disputed land was property of Buddhan, son of Shibban, caste 'Brahmin', resident of village Roza Yakutpur, pargana Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar as claimed by the appellants or it belonged to Buddhan, son of Shibban, caste 'Gurjar', resident of village Sirora Salempur, parnaga Loni, district Ghaziabad as claimed by the respondents. The respondents filed khatauni 1356 F, in which some of disputed land was recorded in the name of Buddhan, son of Shibban, caste 'Gurjar', resident of village Sirora Salempur. They filed bhumidahri certificate obtained by Buddhan, son of Shibban, caste 'Gurjar', resident of village Sirora Salempur of the disputed land. They also filed sale deed dated 26.10.1961, by which some of the disputed land was purchased by Buddhan, son of Shibban, caste 'Gurjar', resident of village Sirora Salempur, from Sheelu, Imrat and Bijji, sons of Ram Karan. They filed khatauni 1360 F, 1375 F-1377 F, 1378 F-1380 F and 1381 F-1383 F, in which disputed land was recorded in the name of Buddhan, son of Shibban, resident of village Sirora Salempur. Khatauni 1381 F-1383 F contained an amaldaramad of the names of the respondents as sons and heirs of Buddhan. On the basis of these documentary evidence on record, Deputy Director of Consolidation found that disputed land belonged to Buddhan. son of Shibban, caste 'Gurjar', resident of village Sirora Salempur, who was inherited by the respondents. The petitioners could not adduce any evidence, to rebut the aforementioned documentary evidence on record. 9. So far as the arguments that the matter was rightly remanded for trial before Consolidation Officer, by Settlement Officer Consolidation, as complicated issue relating to title over disputed land was involved, which required trial, is concerned, the petitioner did not file any objection under Section 9 of the Act although in basic consolidation record, their names were not recorded. In the appeal, they could not prove their locus standi or prima facie case. It was merely a fake litigation started after 23 years of notification of the village under Section 9 of the Act. Out of six appellants, only one appellant has filed this writ petition, without impleading others as party. The chaks were carved out in the names of the respondents, 23 years back. It was merely a fake litigation started after 23 years of notification of the village under Section 9 of the Act. Out of six appellants, only one appellant has filed this writ petition, without impleading others as party. The chaks were carved out in the names of the respondents, 23 years back. It is not liable to be believed that without their names being recorded in basic consolidation year and without the chaks being carved out in their names, the appellants were in possession of the disputed land although all the documentary evidence were in favour of the respondents. Their right, if any, was barred under Section 11-A of the Act. In any case, in view of findings recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioner and other appellants were totally strangers to the disputed land, no question arose for remanding the case. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.