O. P. Trivedi, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Brij Lal and Jas Karan and arises out of consolidation matter. It appears that the basic year entry in respect of the disputed plot stood in favour of Ram Raj, opposite party No. 5. The petitioners filed an objection claiming that they were grove-holders of the disputed land having been planting trees for the last 50 years and also claimed to have purchased a tree which stood on the mend of tie grove from the Raja of Ayodhya. This object on was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by an order dated 3-3-1968 , (Annexure 1 of the writ petition). The petitioners filed an object on against this order before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who allowed the appeal and the petitioners objection holding that they are grove-holders of the disputed plot and directed that their names should be recorded after expunction of the name of opposite party No. 5. The order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is dated 18-5-1968 (Annexure 2 of the writ petition). It may be added here that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) rejected the counter claim of opposite party that he is grove-holder of the disputed land having obtained permission for plantation of trees from the zamindar and that he had planted the trees 12 years ago. Opposite party No. 5 then filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who decided the same by an order dated 11-3-1968 (Annexure 5 of the writ (petition) holding that both the petitioners and opposite party No. 5 had failed to prove that they were grove-holders and in the result directed that the land should be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha, opposite party No. 4. It is against this order that the present petition is directed.
(2.) I have heard Sri Kesri Bir Prasad and Sri Pradeep Kant for the petitioners and opposite party No. 5, respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged only one point. It was submitted that the Gaon Sabha not having filed an objection under Sec. 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the Deputy Director of Consolidation was incompetent to make a declaration of right in its favour and could not direct that the name of Gaon Sabha should be recorded against the disputed plot. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot declare in proceedings under Sec. 9-A, 11 and 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings that certain land vests in the Gaon Sabha if the latter did not file an objection under Sec. 9 as it is bound to do if it is a party interested in the disputed land (See Ram Pyarey Shukla v. Bindhya Din, 1974 R.D. 175 and Gram Sabha Kundra v. Noor Mohammad Khan, 1974 R.D. 350 . I, therefore, hold that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed a manifest error of law in directing that the name of Gaon Sabha, opposite party No. 4 should be entered in the revenue records against the disputed plot and consequently the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11-3-1969 is liable to be quashed to this extent. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 5 drew my attention to an amendment of Sec. 11 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by Sec. 22 of the U. P. Land Laws Amendment Act, 1974. By this amendment Sec. 11-C has been added to Sec- 11 of the Act, reading as follows: "11-C. In the course of hearing of an objection under Sec. 9-A or an appeal under Sec. 11, or in proceedings under Sec. 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." In the first place, this amendment does not govern the present proceedings because it is not retrospective in effect. In the second place, even after this amendment the Consolidation Officer the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Deputy Director of Consolidation will be competent to direct recording of the name of the State Government or Gaon Sabha or a Local body or authority only in those cases in which ex facie and without any dispute the land vests in the State Government, Gaon Sabha, a local body or authority and the amendment does not invest the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Deputy Director of Consolidation with power to declare that the State Government, Gaon Sabha, a local body or authority is vested with right in certain land even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by it under Secs. 9-A, 11 and 48 of the Act. This amendment does not absolve the Gaon Sabha from filing an objection under Sec. 9 or an appeal under Sec. 11 or a revision under Sec. 48 in those cases in which its right or interest in land is disputed and the land is not recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha in the basic year.
(3.) In the result I allow the petition and quash the contents of para 5 of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11-3-1969 containing direction that the disputed land shall be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Issue certiorari accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed..;