JUDGMENT : Irshad Ali, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri G.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has informed to Sri Sampurnanand, learned counsel for the respondent, who is representing Nagar Palika, Pratapgarh, who has received the notice, but is not present. 4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 7.6.2003 and 31.3.2005, contained as Annexures-1 and 2, passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. It is further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to delete the name of respondent No.3 from the revenue records regarding plot No.1330 of Village Ranjeetpur Chilbila. 5. Factual matrix of the case is that in the year 1879, the district Pratapgarh was carved out from the district Raebareli. In 1872, the first settlement was done, wherein plot Nos.820, 821 and 825 of Village Ranjeetpur, Chilbila were in possession of Janka Das Faqeer and Zamindar of the land was Rani Raghuraj Kunwari. In 1982, the Village Ranjeetpur became popular as Chilbila Bazar. 6. The forefather of the petitioners came to Chilbila and established in Village Ranjeetpur alongwith his son Ganeshi Din acquired the said pond area from the Zamindar for the purpose of charity and built a pakka talab having two ghats for human and one ghat for animals. During the second settlement, the plot Nos.820, 821 and 825 were carved out as a single plot and numbered as plot No.1279 having its area as 2-17-16. The construction and trees were recorded in revenue records. The said plots and trees and tank were recorded under the possession of Ganeshi Deen. 7. In the third settlement, the plot No.1279 of second settlement was renumbered as plot No.392 having an area of 3-8-17. On 17.12.1910, huge property of Durga was partitioned through family settlement. After abolition of zamindari, the sub urban area of Ranjeetpur Chilbila was included in Nagar Palika, Pratapgarh. A Lekhpal added the name of Nagar Palika in reference to the said plots without any order of any competent authority. The petitioners came to know about the aforesaid in the year 1998. On 24.6.1998, the petitioners moved a complaint to the Tehsildar, who on the basis of complaint, made an enquiry and submitted his report to Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar. 8. The petitioners came to know about the aforesaid in the year 1998. On 24.6.1998, the petitioners moved a complaint to the Tehsildar, who on the basis of complaint, made an enquiry and submitted his report to Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar. 8. The petitioners moved an application under Section 33 /39 of Land Revenue Act before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Pratapgarh for rectifying the mistake and removing the name of respondent No.3 from the records in reference of the said plot. The said application was registered as Case No.88/39/15/12//5/29/24 and later on transferred to the respondent No.2 for disposal, who disposed of the application of the petitioners by way of passing a summary order on surmises and conjectures, it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. The petitioners preferred a revision against the order dated 7.6.2003 before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad which was later on transferred to the respondent No.1 for disposal. 10. The respondent No.1, passed an order, confirming the findings of respondent No.2, thereby the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court. 11. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a report was called for from the Tehsildar and Lekhpal of the concerned area who submitted a report on 24.6.1998 that the incorporation has been done wrongly by mistake and has not incorporated in pursuance to the order of any revenue Officer. Submission is that without considering the relevant material on record before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Commissioner, they have failed to pass a justified order in law. 12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the impugned orders are just and valid and do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 13. After having heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court on the report of the Tehsildar and Annexure-10 (page-96) of the paper book, which clearly states that the Gata No.1330 in the khatauni, the land is registered as tank and adjacent to the tank, old temple and dharamshala is situated and there are mahua and peepal trees. It has also been reported that no order whatsoever has been passed by any revenue authority for incorporation of the land belonging to the Nagar Palika. 15. It has also been reported that no order whatsoever has been passed by any revenue authority for incorporation of the land belonging to the Nagar Palika. 15. The Sub Divisional Magistrate while deciding the issue, has rejected the claim in summary manner without considering the report submitted by the Tehsildar and Lekhpal. The Commissioner has also failed to appreciate that the incorporation in the name of Nagar Palika is forged and fabricated and ignored the report of the Tehsildar and Lekhpal dated 24.6.1998 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition), therefore, the impugned orders suffer from apparent illegality and are liable to be set aside. 16. There is no rational justification on the part of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Commissioner not the consider the report of the Tehsildar and Lekhpal dated 24.6.1998 and due to non consideration of report, the impugned orders suffer from vices of merit and are liable to be set aside. 17. On overall consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 7.6.2003 and 31.3.2005 are not justifiable in law, therefore, the same are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed 18. It is provided that the respondent No.2 shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law, taking into consideration the report of the Tehsildar dated 24.6.1998, if possible, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.