JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Shri Prashant Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 and opposite parties no.5 to 8 in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of 2006 (here-in-after referred as the petitioners), Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 and petitioner in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of 2006 (here-in-after referred as the opposite party no.2) and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha in both the writ petitions. The office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice for opposite party no.1 in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 and for opposite parties no.1 to 3 in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of 2006. 2. The Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 20.05.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Writ Petition No. 862 (Cons) of 2006 challenging the same judgment and order dated 20.05.2006 to the extent of rejecting the title of the petitioners on trees and boring well as well as directing the Plot No.798 to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The dispute in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 relates to Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 whereas the dispute in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of 2006 relates only to the extent of half share in Plot No.798. 3. On publication of records the father of the petitioners late Mahipal Singh had filed objection claiming the land of the Plot Nos.642, 798, 853/1, 853/2, 540 and 509 as his grove land and under his occupation and possession since the time prior to Zamidari Abolition. The Assistant Consolidation Officer transmitted it to the Consolidation Officer on an application moved by the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer after considering the objection and the evidence adduced before it rejected the claim of the petitioners in regard to Plot Nos.853 and 540 and allowed in regard to Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 and declared him as grove holder Bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 205 of U.P. Tenancy Act read with Section 18 (1) (e) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred as Act of 1953) since 1362 Fasli and directed to remove the entry of Usar/Banzar and record the name of the petitioners in the revenue records by means of the order dated 07.02.1996. On an application moved by the petitioners, under Rule 109-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (here-in-after referred as Rules of 1954), the Consolidation Officer directed to make entry in the revenue records by means of the order dated 13.02.1998. 4. The opposite party no.2, Barlam Singh filed an application for recall of the order dated 13.02.1998 passed on the application under Rule 109-A. The application was rejected by means of the order dated 08.07.2004. Being aggrieved the opposite party no.2 filed Appeal No.1548 under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed by means of the order dated 08.12.2004. The opposite party no.2 had also preferred an application for recall of the order dated 07.02.1996 passed under Section 9 (A)(2) of the Act of 1953 by the Consolidation Officer, which was rejected on 09.11.2004. The opposite party no.2 preferred three revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after considering the revisions and the material on records found that the land in dispute is of the Gram Samaj which was not disputed by the parties, allowed the revisions partly by means of the order dated 20.05.2006 in the interest of the Gram Sabha and directed the Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 to be recorded in the account of the Gram Sabha as it was recorded earlier. Hence, the present writ petitions were filed challenging the same. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petitioners had filed the objections under Section 9(A) 2 of the Act of 1953 and the evidence was also adduced. After considering the same the objection in regard to Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 was allowed and the petitioners were rightly declared the grove holder Bhumidhar with transferable rights and the name of the petitioners was recorded in the revenue records under Rule 109- A of the Rules of 1954. The opposite party no.2 had filed highly time barred and misconceived application for recall of the order passed under Rule 109-A which was rightly rejected. The application for recall against the order dated 07.02.1996 passed under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 was also rejected in accordance with law. The appeal was also dismissed having no merit. The opposite party no.2 had filed highly time barred and misconceived application for recall of the order passed under Rule 109-A which was rightly rejected. The application for recall against the order dated 07.02.1996 passed under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 was also rejected in accordance with law. The appeal was also dismissed having no merit. The Revisional Authority, without considering that no application or revision was filed by the Gaon Sabha and without affording any opportunity to the petitioners, partly allowed the revision and set-aside the orders challenged before it, but instead of remanding the case, in an arbitrary and illegal manner directed to record the Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 in the account of the Gram Sabha without any application, revision or basis. Therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Gram Sabha, Dhaniya Mau Vs. Ram Manohar (Dead) by LRs and Others; (2010) 12 SCC 384 , Muneshwar (Dead) By LRs Vs. Raja Mohammad Khan and Others; (1998) 6 SCC 582 and Hasan Ali and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others; 1992 Supp (2) SCC 70. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 had submitted that the opposite party no.2 was in possession since prior to the Zamidari Abolition alongwith petitioners on Plot No.798 (new number of which is 960 Kha) therefore he was also entitled for half share in Plot No.798 but the petitioners had filed the objection without impleading the opposite party no.2. The Consolidation Officer had also, without issuing any notice or affording opportunity to the opposite party no.2, passed the order on 07.02.1996 and thereafter got the same implemented by means of the order dated 13.02.1998. After coming to know about the order dated 13.02.1998, the opposite party no.2 filed the restoration application which was rejected in an arbitrary and illegal manner. He had filed an application for recall of the order dated 07.02.1996 also passed by the Consolidation Officer but the same was also rejected in arbitrary and illegal manner. The appeal was also rejected. Therefore three revisions were filed. He had filed an application for recall of the order dated 07.02.1996 also passed by the Consolidation Officer but the same was also rejected in arbitrary and illegal manner. The appeal was also rejected. Therefore three revisions were filed. Learned Revisional Authority, though found that the orders challenged in the revisions were not sustainable in the eyes of law and set-aside the same but without any application or revision of the Gaon Sabha directed to record the Plot No.798 also in the account of the Gram Sabha. Therefore the order passed by the Revisional Authority is not sustainable to the extent of the direction to record the Plot No.798 in the account of Gram Sabha and the same is liable to be quashed. 8. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that the name of the petitioners was not recorded in the revenue records on the date of vesting and thereafter in 1356 and 1359 Fasli also. The petitioners and the opposite party no.2 never raised any objection. It was only when the consolidation proceedings started, father of the petitioners filed the objection. He has failed to prove that he was entitled for the land in dispute or his possession was there. He also submitted that the lease of grove could not have been given by the Zamidar. The Consolidation Officer, without any proof, had allowed the objection of the petitioners in regard to the plots in question. The Revisional Authority has rightly passed the order in accordance with law. There is no illegality or infirmity in the revisional order impugned in the present writ petitions. The writ petitions are misconceived and lacks merit and are liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused orders and the record. 10. The dispute decided by the Revisional Authority is in regard to the Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509. The objection raised by the petitioners in regard to Plot Nos.853 and 504 was already rejected by the Consolidation Officer which was not challenged by the petitioners. 10. The dispute decided by the Revisional Authority is in regard to the Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509. The objection raised by the petitioners in regard to Plot Nos.853 and 504 was already rejected by the Consolidation Officer which was not challenged by the petitioners. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer indicates that the claim made by the petitioners was set up on the ground that the Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 were given by the Zamidar to the petitioners for planting grove and with the permission of the Zamidar the grove was planted but the Consolidation Officer found that there is no evidence to this effect. However allowed the objection in regard to Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 merely stating that the statement of the petitioners is proved by the circumstantial evidence and old grove on the basis of spot inspection. The spot inspection was got done on an application of the petitioners. In pursuance thereof a report dated 06.10.1989 was submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner found trees on Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 and also found that the trees are so densed that the agriculture is not possible on the plots as such the Advocate Commissioner had only found that there is grove on the plots in question but there is no report regarding possession of the petitioners or the opposite party no.2 on the said plots or the grove. The petitioners had also filed only copy of Khasra No.1347 Fasli and some demand slips of irrigation and receipt of payment of revenue but it was not proved that they were of the same land therefore the Consolidation Officer has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioners are not entitled for any benefit of the same. 11. The Consolidation Officer had made three issues which are as under:- ^^1- D;k oknh fooknxzLr Hkwfe dk vly [kkrsnkj gS tSlh dh mldh vkifŸk gS\ 2- D;k LFky ij fooknxzLr Hkwfe ckx gS\ ;fn gkW rks izHkko\ 3- D;k oknh fooknxzLr Hkwfe dk dCtk eq[kkyQkuk ds vk/kkj ij ldzje.kh; Hkwfe/kj gS\^^ 12. The petitioners had not contested the issues no.1 and 3 which were regarding his claim as actual tenure holder and Bhumidhar with transferable rights on the basis of adverse possession. The only issue no.2 was contested which was as to whether there is grove on the land in dispute? if yes, then effect? The petitioners had not contested the issues no.1 and 3 which were regarding his claim as actual tenure holder and Bhumidhar with transferable rights on the basis of adverse possession. The only issue no.2 was contested which was as to whether there is grove on the land in dispute? if yes, then effect? As such the petitioners had left their claim on the plots in dispute as actual tenure holder or on the basis of adverse possession, therefore only it was to be decided as to whether there is any grove on the land in dispute or not and what would be the effect of the grove. Therefore this court is of the view that the Consolidation officer had wrongly and illegally considered the claim of the petitioners on the land in dispute and declared the petitioners not only the grove holder but Bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 18 (1) (e) of the Act of 1952 merely on the basis of a copy of Khasra of 1347 Fasli and on the basis of alleged circumstantial evidence and the report of the Advocate Commissioner which are also not in favour of the petitioners and without any cogent evidence. 13. The Revisional Authority, while considering the revisions, found that the land in dispute is of the Gram Samaj which is admitted to both the parties. This finding has not been challenged however a plea has been taken that the opposite party no.1 has also incorrectly appreciated the evidences on record and has incorrectly held that no body can be declared as the owner of the trees planted over the land belonging to Gaon Sabha but failed to disclose in any manner that the land in dispute is not of the Gram Sabha. In the arguments advanced before this Court also learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 could not show that the land in dispute does not belong to Gram Samaj. Therefore since the grove was found on the land in dispute and the petitioners had not contested the issues of actual tenure holder and adverse possession, it has rightly beem recorded in the name of Gram Sabha. 14. Therefore since the grove was found on the land in dispute and the petitioners had not contested the issues of actual tenure holder and adverse possession, it has rightly beem recorded in the name of Gram Sabha. 14. So far as the claim of the opposite party no.2 is concerned, this Court is of the view that since the petitioners' claim was not sustainable, the opposite party no.2, who is claiming half of the land of Plot No.798 on the basis of possession alongwith petitioners is also not sustainable. 15. So far as the cases relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, this Court is of the view that they are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the case of Gram Sabha, Dhaniya Mau Vs. Ram Manohar (Dead) by LRs and Others; (2010) 12 SCC 384 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that concurrent finding of fact could not have been interfered by accepting the single piece of evidence. Similar is the judgment passed in the case of Muneshwar (Dead) By LRs Vs. Raja Mohammad Khan and Others; (1998) 6 SCC 582 , in which it has been held that the concurrent finding should not have been interfered in the writ jurisdiction in the face of the clear evidence of possession and entries in the records of right. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasan Ali and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others; 1992 Supp (2) SCC 70 and did not agree with the contrary conclusion by the High Court in face of the clear evidence as against the concurrent finding recorded on the basis of correct appreciation of records and evidence. In the present case there is no clear evidence and issues of title and possession were not contested and there are no concurrent finding of all the courts below. This Court also found that the Consolidation Officer has allowed the objection without any evidence or sufficient material and contrary to contest. 16. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners and opposite party no.2 that the Gaon Sabha has neither made any application nor filed revision therefore the land could not have been directed to be recorded in the name of the Gram Samaj is totally misconceived and baseless. 16. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners and opposite party no.2 that the Gaon Sabha has neither made any application nor filed revision therefore the land could not have been directed to be recorded in the name of the Gram Samaj is totally misconceived and baseless. In this regard Section 11(C) of the Act of 1953 is very clear, which is extracted below:- "[11-C. In the course of hearing of an objection under Section 9-A or an appeal under Section 11, or in proceedings under Section 48, the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, may direct that any land which vests in the State Government or the Gaon Sabha or any other local body or authority may be recorded in its name, even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or authority.]" 17. In view of Section 11 (C) in proceedings under Section 48, the Director of Consolidation may direct that any land which vests in the Gaon Sabha may be recorded in its name even though no objection or appeal or revision has been filed by the Gaon Sabha. Therefore even if the Gaon Sabha has not filed any objection, appeal or revision and the Revisional Authority, while examining the case under Section 48, finds that the land belongs to Gaon Sabha, it can direct to record in the name of Gaon Sabha in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Revisional Authority has not committed any illegality or error in passing the impugned order and directing to record the land in dispute in the name of the Gaon Sabha as it was recorded earlier. 18. This Court, in the case of Dheeraj and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gautam Budh Nagar and Others; 2009 (107) RD 695 , has held that under Section 11-C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act it is provided that if CO., S.O.C., D.D.C. while hearing a case comes to the conclusion that any land vests in the State Government or Gaon Sabha then it shall be recorded in the name of State or Gaon Sabha even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by State or Gaon Sabha. 19. 19. Section 48 of the Act of 1953, wherein the power of revision has been provided, provides that the Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. As such this right is not vested in the party concerned to invoke the revisional jurisdiction rather the jurisdiction vests in the Deputy Director of Consolidation to call for or examine the record of any case decided or proceeding drawn. So even if, a party aggrieved has not invoked revisional jurisdiction, the Deputy Director of Consolidation can suo moto exercise powers of revisional jurisdiction and he may make such order as he thinks fit. Therefore also, even if, the Goan Sabha had not made any application or revision and the Deputy Director of Consolidation finds that the land in dispute vests in the Gaon Sabha, State Government or any local authority he may make an order to vest it in the same. 20. This Court in the case of Ram Gopal versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Others; W.P. Consolidation No.33557 of 2018, while considering the provisions of Section 11-C and Section 48 of the Act of 1953 has also held that for exercising the power of revisional jurisdiction, party aggrieved may or may not invoke Section 48 and in appropriate case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation can suo moto exercise his powers of revisional jurisdiction. The relevant portion is extracted below:- "Section 11-C of the Act specifically provides that in the course of hearing of an objection under Section 9-A or an appeal under Section 11 or revision petition under Section 48, the consolidation authorities may direct that any land which vests in the State Government or Gaon Sabha may be recorded in its name, even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by such Government or Gaon Sabha or the local authorities is concerned. Section 11-C is reproduced herein below:- 11C. Section 11-C is reproduced herein below:- 11C. In the course of hearing of an objection under Section 9-A or an appeal under Section 11, or in proceedings under Section 48, the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, may direct that any land which vests in the State Government or the Gaon Sabha or any other local body or authority may be recorded in its name, even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or authority. Considering the nature of disputes raised during the consolidation operations, the legislature while enacting Section 11-C of the Act was conscious of the functions to be performed by the consolidation courts. Section 11-C was inserted by the legislature in the Act with a purpose and the purpose is apparent. There may be a situation where many a times, on account of certain misgivings and for certain other reasons, the Land Management Committee or the Gram Pradhan for certain reasons may ignore to protect the interest of Gaon Sabha or the property vested in State Government. It is for the aforesaid purpose of securing and protecting the land vested in Gaon Sabha or State Government that the legislature has consciously enacted Section 11-C of the Act and has thus cast a duty on the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass orders recording such land in the name of State or Gaon Sabha even though no objection or appeal or revision under Section 9-A, Section 11 or Section 48 is preferred by the State Government or Gaon Sabha or the local authority concerned. It is settled law that right to appeal is a statutory right which operates within the four corners of the statute which confers such right in a person or a party, however, so far as the jurisdiction of revisional court is concerned, specifically in the case of revisional court created under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which exercises the revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the said Act, it is not a right vested in the party concerned to invoke the revisional jurisdiction; rather Section 48 vests a jurisdiction in the Deputy Director of Consolidation to call for or examine the record of any case decided or proceedings drawn. Thus for exercising of revisional jurisdiction, a party aggrieved may or may not invoke Section 48 and in an appropriate case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation can suo motu exercise his powers of revisional jurisdiction." 21. The Revisional Authority after considering the pleadings and evidence has found that the land in dispute belongs to Gram Samaj therefore even if the orders passed by the lower authorities were not sustainable and quashed, no fruitful purpose would have been served by remanding the case when the Revisional Authority itself has authority to pass the order under the statute. 22. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or error in the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petitions are misconceived and devoid of any merit. 23. Both the writ petitions, are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.