JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard Shri Govind Krishna for the petitioner and Shri S.C. Verma for the respondents 3 to 6, the contesting respondents in the writ petition, which arises out of an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 10.02.2017 (incorrectly mentioned as 10.02.2016) and the order dated 20.01.2004 and 14.05.2007, passed by the respondents. 3. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot no. 6687 situated in Village Ghambhir Ban, Pargana Nizamabad, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh. 4. The petitioner filed an objection in November 1997, under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming to be in possession over the land in question namely plot no. 6687 area 22 links. It was also asserted that the basic year entry in favour of Jai Prakash and Bhagwan Singh was incorrect and the same was liable to be deleted. The petitioner claimed to be bhumidhar of the land and that the name of the respondents was wrongly recorded. 5. A report was submitted by the consolidator on 03.11.1997 that the basic year khatauni was torn. Plot no. 6687 had a total area of 0.990 links as per the settlement entry. An area of 0.030 links of this plot was recorded as banjar in khata no. 1859, while 0.080 links was recorded in khata no. 57 in the name of Jai Prakash and others. 6. It appears that an application was filed on 24.11.1997 stating therein that the parties had entered into a compromise and, therefore, the delay in filing the objection be condoned and the name of Bhagwan Singh and Jai Prakash be expunged and the land in question be recorded in the name of Sankatha Singh, the petitioner-objector. 7. The Consolidation Officer on 24.11.1997, condoned the delay in filing the objection and decided the case in terms of the compromise, which was directed to be made part of the order. 8. Against the order aforesaid, the respondent no. 3 and the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 4 to 7 filed appeal no. 2663. It was their case that they had obtained sale deed of 58 links of plot no. 6687 from Jai Prakash and Bhagwan Singh. 8. Against the order aforesaid, the respondent no. 3 and the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 4 to 7 filed appeal no. 2663. It was their case that they had obtained sale deed of 58 links of plot no. 6687 from Jai Prakash and Bhagwan Singh. It was also alleged that the 22 links of the plot in question, the land in suit, had been duly valued and had been allotted in the chak of the appellants. 9. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 20.01.2004, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer on the ground that it amounted to an illegal transfer and that the compromise was contrary to law. It was observed that a tenure holder could surrender his land only in favour of the Gaon Sabha but not in favour of any private individual and, therefore, the compromise was illegal. The land was accordingly directed to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha as Navin Parti. 10. Aggrieved by this order, a restoration application was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2007. 11. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision, which has been dismissed on 10.02.2017, however the Presiding Officer has wrongly mentioned the date as 10.02.2016. 12. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that he was a mortgagee in possession of the land in question in pursuance of an unregistered mortgage deed dated 03.07.1975. It is also contended that the land in question was never recorded as banjar. It was recorded in the name of the proforma respondent, who had entered into a valid compromise with the petitioner. 13. Relying upon the judgments of this Court reported in 1992 RD 90 Ramanand and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and others and upon the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Rama Devi Vs. Dilip Singh, 2008 (104) RD 538, it is contended that where a bhumindhar in lieu of money advanced, transfers possession of his land to such person, the transaction would be deemed to be a valid transfer. 14. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the CH Form 2A, filed alongwith the writ petition to submit that plot no. 6687 had a settlement area of 110 links but on the spot was found to be 80 links only and was recorded as banjar. 14. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the CH Form 2A, filed alongwith the writ petition to submit that plot no. 6687 had a settlement area of 110 links but on the spot was found to be 80 links only and was recorded as banjar. Jai Prakash was recorded in possession over this plot. It is therefore contended that the persons who have by way of a compromise, accepted the claim of the petitioner were mere occupiers of Gaon Sabha land. No rights can accrue in favour of an occupier of Gaon Sabha land. 15. The land in question was banjar and, therefore, vested in the Gaon Sabha and a person in possession over the Gaon Sabha property does not get any title to the same. Therefore, no title could be granted to the petitioner on the basis of compromise entered into by a person in possession over Gaon Sabha land. 16. As regards the plea of mortgage raised by counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted that this plea was raised for the first time at the revisional stage. The objection, as also the compromise order passed by the Consolidation Officer or the compromise itself do not speak of any mortgage. Even otherwise, the mortgage deed produced is an unregistered document, which was not admissible in evidence. The case of the alleged mortgage therefore, cannot be accepted. 17. With regard to the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the appeal against the compromise order had been filed by unconcerned person, he has submitted that even if the same is accepted, the Courts, in view of Section 11C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, can always proceed on information received and pass appropriate orders to protect the interest of the Gaon Sabha. 18. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 19. The first issue to be considered is whether the compromise order passed by the Consolidation Officer amounted to an illegal transfer, as has been held by the Courts below. It is the case of the petitioner that the proforma respondents who entered into a compromise and accepted the claim of the petitioner, were bhumidhars and on the basis of the order, the petitioner also acquired bhumidhari rights. 20. It is the case of the petitioner that the proforma respondents who entered into a compromise and accepted the claim of the petitioner, were bhumidhars and on the basis of the order, the petitioner also acquired bhumidhari rights. 20. It does not appear from a perusal of the CH Form 2A, filed on record, that the proforma respondents, the signatories to the compromise, were recorded as bhumidhars over the land in question. Even if for the sake of argument, the same is accepted, it is still to be examined whether they could have entered into a compromise relinquishing their title by a compromise. 21. The compromise in the facts and circumstances of the case could either be surrender in favour of the petitioner or the co-option of the petitioner as a co-owner. There is no provision for co-option under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The same could therefore only be termed a surrender, especially because no plea of any mortgage was raised either in the objection or any mortgage with possession in favour of the petitioner was mentioned in the compromise or the order passed on its basis. The alleged mortgage deed, therefore, is nothing but after thought. 22. Besides, I also find substance in the submission of counsel for the respondents that the plot in question in CH Form 2A was recorded as banjar and the proforma respondents were only in possession over a portion thereto. 23. Although, counsel for the petitioner has referred to CH Form 11, filed at page 20 of the paper book to show that plot no. 6687 area 080 links was recorded in khata no. 113 in the name of Jai Prakash son of Shrinath and Bhagwan Singh son of Kuber, but the same cannot be accepted in view of the CH Form 2A filed at page 18 of the paper book, whose perusal reveals that the settlement area of plot no. 6687 was 110 links and on the spot only 80 links were found to be available. An amaldaramad on this CH Form 2A reveals that 30 links of this plot had been valued and the objection filed by the petitioner for keeping it out of consolidation operations, had been rejected. 6687 was 110 links and on the spot only 80 links were found to be available. An amaldaramad on this CH Form 2A reveals that 30 links of this plot had been valued and the objection filed by the petitioner for keeping it out of consolidation operations, had been rejected. If the petitioner's contention is to be accepted, the petitioner has to be explained as to how only two of the tenure holders out of three, recorded over khata no. 113, in CH Form 11, had entered into a compromise in his favour when their mend co-owner, namely Ram Chandra, was not a signatory to the compromise. 24. Even otherwise, a bhumidhar can surrender his holding only in favour of the Gaon Sabha as provided under Section 185 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. There is no provision for surrender by a bhumidhar with transferable rights. Surrender can only be by a bhumidhar with non transferable rights. The compromise order therefore, amounted to a transfer and also an illegal transfer, as there exists no provision of law, where under such a transaction is contemplated under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 25. Besides section 166 of the same Act provides that any transfer in violation of the provisions of the said Act would be deemed to be void and the property subject matter of such a void transaction would vest in the State far from the date of the transaction itself. The property in question has been ordered to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha as Navin Parti in consonance with Section 166 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 26. Since the plea of a mortgage has been held to be after thought, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the judgments cited on his behalf. 27. There is yet another reason for not accepting the case of a mortgage because the mortgage had been executed only by two of the three persons whose name was recorded over the land in question as per the CH Form 11, which has been relied upon by the petitioner. 28. In any case, the mortgage deed does not inspire confidence as 22 links of land was mortgaged with possession to secure a loan of Rs. 50 only. 29. 28. In any case, the mortgage deed does not inspire confidence as 22 links of land was mortgaged with possession to secure a loan of Rs. 50 only. 29. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders call for no interference. 30. The writ petition is dismissed.