Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Jai Prakash Singh, for the petitioners, and Sri C.K. Rai, alongwith Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, for respon -dents -8 to 9. The writ petition has been filed against order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.12.2014, allowing the revisions of respondents -4 to 10 and setting aside the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 11.2.2011 and reinstating orders of Consolidation Officer, in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and conferring/recognizing "bhumidhar with non -transferable right" to respondents -4 to 10 under section 122 -B (4 -F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, over disputed land.
(2.) THE dispute relates to plot 588 (area 3 -0 -0 bigha), which was recorded as 'tal' and plots 252/27 (area 0 -5 -3 bigha), 336 (area 3 -0 -0 bigha), 352/4 (area 0 -5 -14 bigha), 374 (area 0 -7 -13 bigha), 411 (area 0 -4 -9 bigha), 481/2 (area 0 -9 -18 bigha), 509 (area 0 -6 -8 bigha), 707/3 (area 0 -8 -0 bigha), 759/1 (area 1 -10 -0 bigha), 759/3 (area 0 -10 -0 bigha), 841 (area 0 -4 -18 bigha), 884 (area 0 -11 -5 bigha) and 904/1 (area 1 -1 -5 bigha) of village Muriyari, tahsil Saidur, district Ghazipur, which were recorded as banjar land, in basic consolidation year. It is alleged that Mahendra (respondent -4) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 2489) under section 9 -A of the Act, claiming his right on plot 588 (area 3 -0 -0 bigha) on the basis of his possession over it, since before relevant date, under section 122 -B (4 -F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Consolidation Officer by order dated 30.11.1994 allowed his objection and directed for recording his name as "bhumidhar with nontransferable right". Doman and Ram Krit (respondents -5 and 6) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 2490) under section 9 -A of the Act, claiming their right on plot 588 (area 3 -0 -0 bigha) on the basis of their possession over it, since before relevant date, under section 122 -B (4 -F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Consolidation Officer by order dated 30.11.1994 allowed their objection and directed for recording their names as "bhumidhar with non -transferable right". Ram Brichh (respondent -10) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 2495) under section 9 -A of the Act, claiming his right on plot 588 (area 1 -19 -15 bigha) on the basis of his possession over it, since before relevant date, under section 122 -B (4 -F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Consolidation Officer by order dated 05.12.1994 allowed his objection and directed for recording his name as "bhumidhar with non -transferable right". Radhika (respondent -7) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 329) under section 9 -A of the Act, claiming her right on plots 759/1 (area 1 -10 -0 bigha) and 759/3 (area 0 -10 -0 bigha) on the basis of her possession over it, since before relevant date, under section 122 -B (4 -F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Consolidation Officer by order dated 26.12.2003 allowed her objection and directed for recording her name as "bhumidhar with non -transferable right". Kaushilya (respondent -8) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 500) under section 9 -A of the Act, claiming her right on plots 374 (area 0 -7 -13 bigha), 411 (area 0 -4 -9 bigha), 481/2 (area 0 -9 -18 bigha), 509 (area 0 -6 -8 bigha), 707/3 (area 0 -8 -0 bigha), 759/1 (area 1 -10 -0 bigha), 759/3 (area 0 -10 -0 bigha), 841 (area 0 -4 -18 bigha), 884 (area 0 -11 -5 bigha) and 904/1 (area 1 -1 -5 bigha) (Total area 3 -5 -16 bigha) on the basis of her possession over it, since before relevant date, under section 122 -B (4 -F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Consolidation Officer by order dated 5.4.2005 allowed her objection and directed for recording her name as "bhumidhar with non -transferable right". Mahendra (respondent -4) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 498) under section 9 -A of the Act, claiming his right on plots 252/27 (area 0 -5 -3 bigha), 336 (area 0 -5 -4 bigha), 352/4 (area 0 -5 -14 bigha), 707/3 (area 0 -8 -0 bigha), total area 1 -3 -19 bigha) on the basis of his possession over it, since before relevant date, under section 122 -B (4 -F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Consolidation Officer by order dated 5.4.2005 allowed his objection and directed for recording his name as "bhumidhar with non -transferable right". State of U.P. filed separate appeals (registered as Appeal Nos. 1861, 1862, 1863, 1865, 1867 and 1869) from the aforesaid orders. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by separate orders dated 10.2.2011 held that Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to confer title under section 122 -B (4 -F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On this finding, the appeals were allowed and orders of Consolidation Officer, were set aside. Respon -dents -4 to 10 filed their separate revisions (registered as Revision Nos. 954, 955, 956, 957, 958 and 959 of 2014 -15) against the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 10.12.2014 held that Supreme Court in Manorey v. Board of Revenue, U.P. 2003 (94) RD 538 (SC), has held section 122 -B (4 -F) not merely provides a shield to protect possession but it also confers a positive right under section 131 (b) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 as such consolidation authorities are also competent to grant such declaration. The orders of Consolidation Officer did not suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction and were not liable to be set aside. On these findings he allowed the revisions and set aside orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 11.2.2011 and reinstated the orders of Consolidation Officer. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE Counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that the impugned order has not affected right of the petitioners and they are not aggrieved persons, writ petition filed by them is not maintainable. The land in dispute was tal/banjar land, vested in State of U.P. In view of sections 117 and 117 -A, it was under the management and control of Gram Panchayat. Land Management Committee of the concerned Gram Panchayat has been assigned with right of superintendence, management and control of such land. As such State of U.P. through the Collector or Land Management Committee of the village alone has right to challenge to order of Deputy Director of Consolidation and file writ petition. Every resident of Gram Panchayat has no right to file writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of locus standi of the petitioners. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Babu Ram Verma v. Sub -Divisional Officer and others 1996 (Suppl.) RD 10 and Jagdish Pandey v. Additional Collector (City) Gorakhpur 2011 (114) RD 106.;