JUDGMENT : Saurabh Lavania, J. 1. Heard Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State/opposite party No.1 and perused the record. 2. Issuance of notice to opposite party No.2 is hereby dispensed 3. By means of the present petition, petitioner has sought the following main relief:- "Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6.3.2025 passed Deputy by Director Consolidation Lucknow in revision No. 69 of 2025 Ram Bux vs Rama Kant under section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H.Act in the interest of justice. Contained as annexure no 1 to this writ petition. 4. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.03.2025, passed in Revision No.69 of 2025 (Ram Bux Vs. Rama Kant) under Section 48 (1) of the Act, 1953, whereby the opposite party No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (in short 'D.D.C.'), remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow (in short "C.O.") for deciding the case afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation to decide the certain issues on merits. The relevant portion of the order impugned dated 06.03.2025, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (in short "D.D.C.") is extracted herein under :- 5. The brief facts for disposal of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are extracted as under :- "4. Father of the petitioner being landless person was granted patta by the Land Management Committee of Khata No.67 Gata no 422, 222, 401 on dated 25.01.1955. 5. That it is relevant to mention here that as reveals from the records some proceeding for correction of paper/cancellation of patta was initiated by the Gram Samaj Khanpur Mau against the father of the petitioner khushala which was subsequently dropped vide order dated.05.10.1961 passed by Sub Divisional Officer Lucknow. 6. That during first consolidation scheme in the year 1962, in pursuance of the order dated 5.10.1961 passed by S.D.O Lucknow, the name of the father of the petitioner was entered in the records vide order dated. 6. That during first consolidation scheme in the year 1962, in pursuance of the order dated 5.10.1961 passed by S.D.O Lucknow, the name of the father of the petitioner was entered in the records vide order dated. 13.1.1963 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in case no.143 Over Khata No. 67 Gata No. 422, 222, 401 and since then his father was recorded and since 1955 his father was in peaceful occupation and possession of the property in dispute and after his death the petitioner is in peaceful possession and occupation of the same. 7. That it is relevant mention here that in the year 1976 the father of opposite party no.2 Nanhey being landless person had also been granted patta which had been recorded in revenue records vide order dated. 23.04.1976 passed by Supervisor kanoongo since 1976 his father was in peaceful occupation and possession of the property in dispute and after his death the respondent no.2 is in peaceful possession and occupation of the same and recorded in the revenue records. 8. That since 1955 till start of the first consolidation in the year 1962 which concluded in the year 1982 Nanhey the father of opposite party no.2 or the opposite party no.2 Ram Bux had never raised any objection/claim with regard to the property in question as being ancestral or being joint Hindu family property and the father of the petitioner was recorded as Karta Khandan. 9. That after the death of Nanhey the father of opposite party no.2, Ram Bux for the first time, has filed a suit U/S 229/176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R Act on the false and frivolous grounds claiming declaration of co-tenancy right of 1/2 share and partition of the same bearing Case No.31/41/85/115 of 1985/86 Ram Bux versus Khushal and others. 10. That it is relevant to mention here that without any notice or information to the father of petitioner Khushal forged short written a statement was filed by putting forged signatures admitting the claim of opposite party no.2. 11. That only with intent to create an evidence in his favour this forged written statement was filed by making forged signatures and there after left pursuing the matter and get it dismissed in non-prosecution vide order dated 20.03.1990 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate Lucknow. 12. That there after the opposite party no. 11. That only with intent to create an evidence in his favour this forged written statement was filed by making forged signatures and there after left pursuing the matter and get it dismissed in non-prosecution vide order dated 20.03.1990 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate Lucknow. 12. That there after the opposite party no. 2 keep mum for several years and the village was again notified under the second consolidation vide notification dated 27.9.2008 and denotified vide notification dated 3.9.2014. 13. That just before the denotification of the village under section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act the opposite party no. 2 filed a frivolous delayed objection under section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act claiming co-tenancy right of 1/2 share in the property in dispute on the basis of land being joint family property and the father of the petitioner was Karta Khandan and his name has individually recorded in the revenue records. 14. That after receiving the notice the petitioner has filed a detailed objection mentioning there in that the land in dispute is not ancestral rather being land less person Gata No. 422/5 Bigha, 222/10 Biswa, 401/2 Bigha of Khata No. 67 was allotted to the father of the petitioner in individual capacity and since then the name of his father was recorded as Sirdaar and there after he is recorded in the revenue records and coming in continuous possession of the property in question. 15. That the learned consolidation officer Sarojni Nagar Lucknow has passed an order condoning the delay in the interest of justice vide order dated 26.9.2013. 16. 15. That the learned consolidation officer Sarojni Nagar Lucknow has passed an order condoning the delay in the interest of justice vide order dated 26.9.2013. 16. That it is further submitter that in support of his objection the petitioner has filed the copy of patta dated 25.1.1955, Copy of Khatauni of the year 1369 to 1371 fasli of Khata No. 67, copy of Aakar patra 23 Copy of Aakar patra 41 with regard to Gata No.83, 164, 167, 183, 209, 253, 383 copy of Aakarpatra 45 of first consolidation along with copy of 4land 45 of second consolidation with regard to khata no 140 in the name of Rama Kant son of Khushal, copy of Aakar patra 41 and 45 of khata no 180 in the name of Ram Bux son of Nanhay Copy of khatauni of the year 1382 to 1384 Copy of Pariwar Register of house no 350 belonging to Ram Bux and house no 398 belonging to Rama Kant Copy of order dated 20.3.1990 and evidence on affidavit of himself, Ram Chandra yadav, Alok Yadav, and Smt Ram lali. 17. That in support of his case opposite party no 2-Ram Bux has filed the copy of plaint of the suit filed under section 229/176 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act, copy of written statement, copy of Pariwar Register and affidavit of Ram Bux himself and Kunwer Bahadur, Ram shanker, Munna singh. 18. That it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner has filed an objection denying the fact of filing and putting any signature on written statement and the written statement which has been filed as an evidence in support of his case is a forged and fabricated document. 19. That thereafter counsels of both the parties have cross examined the witnesses of each other. 20. That after hearing the parties at length and evaluating the evidence available on record the learned consolidation officer Sarojni Nagar Lucknow has rejected the objection of the opposite party No. 2 being baseless vide order dated 31.5.2019 with the observation that the opposite party No. 2 could not place any evidence with regard to ancestral property or joint Hindu Family property. 21. 21. That feeling aggrieved with the order dated 31.5.2019 passed by Consolidation Officer Sarojni Nagar, Lucknow the opposite party No.2 has filed an appeal under section 11 of U.P. C.H. Act before Settlement Officer Consolidation Lucknow which has been registered as Appeal No. 102 of 2022 (Ram Bux vs Rama kant). 22. That the petitioner has filed a detailed objection against the appeal and interim relief application supported with affidavit. 23. That the learned appellate court after summoning the lower court record perused the entire record, all evidences documentary and oral and providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17.10.2022 affirming the order dated 31.5.2019 passed by Consolidation Officer, Sarojni Nagar, Lucknow with the observation that the appellant could not place any reliable evidence to prove the property in question as ancestral property and proceeding initiated in the second consolidation proceeding is barred by section 11-A of the U.P.C.H.Act. The father of the petitioner and there after petitioner is continuously recorded since first consolidation proceedings. 24. That feeling aggrieved with the order dated 31.5.2019 passed by Consolidation Officer, Sarojni Nagar, Lucknow and the order dated 17.10.2022, passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow the opposite party No. 2 has filed a revision under section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H.Act bearing Revision No.69 of 2025 (Ram Bux vs. Rama Kant). 25. That after service, the petitioner appeared and filed a detailed objections against the revision and interim relief application supported with an affidavit. 26. That the learned revisional court examining the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case and also traveling beyond pleading, in a most arbitrary manner has remanded the case before Consolidation Officer Sarojni Nagar Lucknow vide order dated 6.3.2025 for deciding afresh in the light of the observations made in the order whereas the observation itself is unjustified and not sustainable in the eye of law." 6. Based upon the aforesaid pleadings, the petitioner has approached this Court impeaching the order dated 06.03.2025, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow. 7. Based upon the aforesaid pleadings, the petitioner has approached this Court impeaching the order dated 06.03.2025, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow. 7. Opposing the present petition, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that from the impugned order, it is apparent that in the present case the issue relates to Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (in short "Act, 1950") as the land in relation to which the petitioner is claiming rights is the land covered under Section 132 of the Act, 1950 and as such interest of State/Gaon Sabha who would plead and prove its case before the C.O. concerned be affected in impugned order is interfered by this Court. 8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record including the impugned order dated 06.03.2025. 9. In order to conclude the matter this Court took note of relevant provisions, which are as under. (a) Section 132 of the Act, 1950 is quoted herein below :- "132. Land in which [bhumidhari] rights shall not accrue. 8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record including the impugned order dated 06.03.2025. 9. In order to conclude the matter this Court took note of relevant provisions, which are as under. (a) Section 132 of the Act, 1950 is quoted herein below :- "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 State 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 (U.P. Act V of 1954).]" (b). Sub Section 2 of Section 3 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act, 1953"), is extracted herein under :- "3. Definitions.- In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context - (1) X X X (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. Definitions.- In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context - (1) X X X (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" (c). Section 29-C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act, 1953") is extracted herein under :- " 29-C. Vesting of land contributed for public purposes. - (1) The land contributed for public purposes under this Act shall, with effect from the date on which the tenure-holders became entitled to enter into possession of the chaks allotted to them under the provisions of this Act as amended from time to time, vest and be always deemed to have vested in the Gaon Sabha [in an area in which Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 applies and in the State Government in any other area] and shall be utilised for the purpose for which it was earmarked in the final Consolidation Scheme, or in case of failure of that purpose, for such other purposes as may be prescribed. (2) The provisions of Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No.1 of 1951), shall mutatis mutandis apply to such land] [ vested in the Gaon Sabha] as if the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha by virtue of a declaration made by the State Government under sub-section (1) of that section, and as if the declaration were made subject to the conditions respecting utilisation specified in sub-section (1) of this Section] (3) [* * *]" (d) Section 11 of the Act of 1953 says as under :- 11. Appeals. Appeals. - (1) Any party to the proceedings under Section 9-A, aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer under that section, may, within 21 days of the date of the order, file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who shall after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, give his decision thereon which, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final and not be questioned in any Court of law. (2) The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, hearing an appeal under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction, anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force notwithstanding." 10. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid statutory provision, this Court finds that no right could be provided over the land recorded as "Usar". 11. On the subject, in the judgment passed in the case of Ram Gopal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich & others [CONSOLIDATION NO.33557 OF 2018, decided on 22.01.2019, following observation have been made :- "I have given my anxious consideration to the competing arguments made by learned counsel representing the respective parties and have also perused the records which are available on this petition. So far as the first submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeals before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation filed by certain individuals against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer were not maintainable is concerned, it may only be observed at this juncture that consolidation authorities/courts have been cast with a heavy duty to protect the right and interest of the State and the Gaon Sabha if any matter is brought before them. 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." 12. According to the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amir Husain and Ors. Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. , MANU/UP/0417/1976 : 1977 AWC 1 All : 1978 RD 204 , the Consolidation Authorities can direct the name of Gaon Sabha or the State Government to be recorded when it is found that there is no valid title holder and that under the law the land had vested in the Government and then Gaon Sabha even though Government or Gaon Sabha had not filed an objection. 13. Upon due consideration of the facts of the instant case and the relevant established provisions as also the observations made by this Court in the judgment(s) referred above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order of remand simplicitor for reason that the C.O., after taking evidence, would decide the following aspects of the case :- (i). The D.D.C. in the order impugned has observed that the land in issue i.e. Gata No.422 was initially recorded as 'Usar' in the revenue record. (ii) In the impugned it has also been observed that there is overwriting in the order dated 05.10.1961, passed by the S.D.O. (iii) It appears from the record that the interest of Gaon Sabha/State was not taken care of while deciding the dispute between the private opposite parties. (iv) The D.D.C. in the impugned order also observed that at the time of providing Patta, Ram Bux was not even born. (v) The D.D.C. in the impugned order of remand simplicitor dated 6.3.2025 has also observed that some entries in the Form-58 have been made in different ink. 14. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.