JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—By means of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking for quashing of the orders dated 24.11.2017, 15.10.2007 and 8.6.2006 passed by the Consolidation authorities in a proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioner claims his right with respect to the lands in Khata No.109, Gata No.76, 77 and 78 situated in village Gyaspur, Pargana and Tehsil Bisalpur, District Pilibhit. By means of the objections filed under Section 9-A (2) of the Act the petitioner sought declaration of his right with respect to the said lands after deletion of the entries of “River” (category-6) in the Basic year Khatauni. 2. The submission was that the name of the petitioner’s predecessors were duly recorded as “Sirdar” in Khata No. 26 of the lands in question of the year 1363 to 1365 fasli. Thereafter, the said entries were deleted and the lands in question was recorded in Category-6 (land covered by water) by an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the said land got submerged in the River, Deyoha. However, with the passage of time, the river has changed its course and now the lands in question namely Gata No. 76, 77 and 78 have been left aside. There is, thus, no impedement in giving tenurial rights and title to the petitioner as his predecessors were having perfect right and title to the lands. 3. In support of his submission, the extract of Khatauni of the year 1356 F, 1358 F, 1359 F, 1360-1361 F, 1362 F, Khata 1363-1365 F, 1369-1371 F, 1389-1394 F have been placed before the Court. A perusal of the said documents indicates that the name of petitioner’s predecessors was recorded in Category-2, ‘Sirdar’ of the lands in Khata No. 68, Gata No. 76/2, 77 and 78 in 1363-1365 fasli. 4. However, admittedly, the said entry was deleted in the year 1369 F and the said lands were recorded in Category-6 (barren land) (land covered by river) in 1366 fasli. The said changes were made in the light of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer for expunging the name of the tenure holders. It is admitted to the petitioner that the said lands were submerged in the river in the year 1957 and the entry in Category-6 were made vide orders dated 30.7.1957 and 12.1.1958 with respect to Gata No. 76/2/0.31 Air and Gata Nos. It is admitted to the petitioner that the said lands were submerged in the river in the year 1957 and the entry in Category-6 were made vide orders dated 30.7.1957 and 12.1.1958 with respect to Gata No. 76/2/0.31 Air and Gata Nos. 78/0.21 Air and Gata No. 77/0.91 Air; respectively. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently submits that since the land in question has been left aside by the river with the change of its course, the Consolidation authorities could not have ignored the entries of ‘Sirdar’ in the name of the petitioner’s predecessor on the assumption that the land in question is a public utility land (covered by water). It is contended that under Section 9(1) (a) (i) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has power to determine the rights in and liabilities in relation to the land. Under Section 9-A(2), the Assistant Consolidation Officer, is required to decide all objections taken by the “persons interested” in respect of claims to land and to settle the disputes between the parties appearing before him. The Consolidation authorities, therefore, have erred in rejecting the claims of the petitioners ignoring the records in a cursory manner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the facts noted above with regard to the entries in the name of the petitioner’s predecessor and expunging of the same by an order of the competent authority are not in dispute. The short question before the Court is as to whether the Consolidation authorities were having jurisdiction to adjudicate the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the land recorded in Category-6 (land covered by water) in the Basic year Khatauni and to declare him owner thereof. 7. To deal with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to go through the scheme of the Act. The preamble of the Act reads as under : “Preamble—Whereas it is expedient to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the development of agriculture;” 8. The statement of object and purpose of the Act as stated therein is to allot a compact area in lieu of scattered plots to tenure holders so as to save their time and energy in cultivation and to reduce the number of boundary disputes. The statement of object and purpose of the Act as stated therein is to allot a compact area in lieu of scattered plots to tenure holders so as to save their time and energy in cultivation and to reduce the number of boundary disputes. The idea is that large scale cultivation may be possible with all its attendant advantages which are intended to encourage the development of agriculture and larger production of foodgrains. 9. The definition of ‘Consolidation’ as provided in Section 3(2) of the Act is that it means rearrangement of holdings in a unit amongst several tenure holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. The explanation to sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, however, excludes certain category of lands from Consolidation. For ready reference, Section 3(2) is extracted as under:— “(2) ‘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]; “Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, holding shall not include the following : (i) Land which was grove in agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under Section 4 was issued; (ii) land subject to fluvial action and intensive soil erosion; (iii) land mentioned in Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; (iv) such compact areas as are normally subject to prolonged water-logging; (v) usar, kallar and rihala plots forming a compact area including cultivated land within such area; (vi) land in use for growing pan, rose, bela, jasmine and kewra; and (vii) such other areas as the Director of Consolidation may declare to be unsuitable for the purpose of Consolidation;” “Holding” as has been defined under the Consolidation Act means : “‘Holding’ means a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure by a tenure-holder singly or jointly with other tenure-holders.” “Land” as has been defined under the Consolidation Act means : “(5) ‘Land’ means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry (including pisciculture and poultry farming) and includes - (i) the site, being part of a holding, of a house or other similar structure; and (ii) trees, wells and other improvements existing on the plots forming the holding];” 10. Thus from a careful reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is clear that the land subject to fluvial action and intensive soil erosion as also the land of category provided in Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is excluded for the purposes of consolidation and they are not to be included in “holdings” for the purpose of rearrangement of land. 11. The “land” as defined in U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is as under : “land” (except in Sections 109, 143 and 144 and Chapter VII) means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandary and includes pisciculture and poultry farming.” 12. Section 132 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is also relevant to be quoted here : “132. Land in which [bhumidhari] rights shall not accrue.—Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 131, but without prejudice to the provisions of Section 19, [bhumidhari] rights shall not accrue in— (a) pasture lands or lands covered by water and used for the purpose of growing singhara or other produce or land in the bed of a river and used for casual or occasional cultivation; (b) such tracts of shifting or unstable cultivation as the State Government may specify by notification in the Gazette; and [(c) lands declared by the Slate Government by notification in the Official Gazette, to be intended or set apart for taungya plantation or grove lands of a [Gaon Sabha] or a Local Authority or land acquired or held for a public purpose and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this clause- (i) lands set apart for military encamping grounds; (ii) lands included within railway or canal boundaries; (iii) lands situate within the limits of any cantonment; (iv) lands included in sullage farms or trenching grounds belonging as such to a local authority; (v) lands acquired by a town improvement trust in accordance with a scheme sanctioned under Section 42 of the U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 (U.P. Act V11 of 1919) or by a municipality for a purpose mentioned in Clause (a) or Clause (c) of Section 8 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act VII of 1916); and (vi) lands set apart for public purposes under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953" 13. A comparison of the two definitions of “land” indicates that a land can be “holdings” under the Consolidation Act only if it is held by the tenure holder as his Bhumidhari, Sirdari, Asami. The land which is covered by water i.e. which comes within the meaning of Section 132 (a) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be included in the definition of “holding” under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and cannot be made subject-matter of consolidation as the same cannot be brought under cultivation. It is a land which is specifically excluded from the process of consolidation. 14. Further, it is settled law that no person can claim Bhumidhari right in respect of land of public utility. It cannot even be allotted by the Gram Sabha. No right would accrue even under Section 122-B (4-F) in respect of the land specified in Section 132 of the Act. Reference may be made to Rizwan v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur, 2003(6) AWC 5065; Ram Singh v. D.D.C. Saharanpur, 2004 (1) RJ 650. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others, 2001 (6) SCC 496 with respect to the pond lands vested in the Gram Sabha under Section 117 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act has held that no person is permitted to occupy or make construction over land recorded as River Bed, Water Reservoirs, Talab or Water Channels as they are nature’s bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 16. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baijnath Rai v. D.D.C. Ghazipur, 1986 (RD) 306 has held that in case a Banzar land is unfit for cultivation and cannot be brought under cultivation, without incurring heavy expenditure, it cannot be a “land” defined under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and cannot be included within the meaning of holding “for the purposes of consolidation”. The consolidation authorities, therefore, cannot adjudicate upon right or title of Banzar land. The consolidation authorities, therefore, cannot adjudicate upon right or title of Banzar land. Further, though it was held that Banzar land, if can be brought under cultivation or trees may be planted over it, i.e. it stands converted into “land” as defined in the Z.A. And L.R. Act or the Consolidation of Holdings Act, it may then become holding and Consolidation authorities may assume jurisdiction, but in absence of such finding in affirmative, the consolidation authorities shall have no jurisdiction to decide rights or claim of the parties therein. 17. The said ratio of the Division bench judgment also supports the view of the Court that in the fact situation of the present case wherein the petitioner is seeking rights in respect of the land covered by water; which according to him is now available for cultivation with the passage of time, cannot be adjudicated by the Consolidation authorities, in as much as the said land being a public utility land (within the meaning of Section 132 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act), stands specifically excluded from the meaning of “holding” under the Consolidation Act. 18. The change of course of river is a natural phenomenon which may result in leaving certain patches of land in a dry state but that fact would not by itself give right to the petitioner to occupy it for the purposes of cultivation. Moreover, the river may change its course again and as such the land which was once submerged and now left by it cannot be allowed to be occupied by anyone. The said land has to be left aside to maintain ecological balance. 19. Even otherwise, the land once declared public utility land cannot be reoccupied by a person whose rights in the said land have been extinguished much earlier. It is noteworthy that the name of the petitioner’s predecessor have been expunged as early as in the year 1957 and 1958 and the land in question were recorded as ‘River’ in Category-6 pursuant to an order passed by the competent authority. The said entries have been continued as such till the notification under Section 4 of Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued. 20. The said entries have been continued as such till the notification under Section 4 of Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued. 20. There is no dispute about the nature of entry in Basic year Khatauni rather the petitioner prays that the said entry may be expunged and rights be created in his favour as the nature of land has been changed with the passage of time. In the considered opinion of the Court, in the light of the provision of the Consolidation of Holdings Act read with the U.P. Z.A. & L.R Act, the Consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue. 21. For all the above noted discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity in the decisions of the Consolidation Authorities in rejecting the objections of the petitioner. The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.