Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri M.N.Singh, learned counsel representing Land Management Committee ? respondent No. 3 have agreed for final disposal of the second writ petition at the admission stage and for the final disposal of the first writ petition without filing counter-affidavit as the Court proposes to remand the matter to Sub Divisional Officer.

2. First writ petition is directed against five orders passed by S.D.O./Deputy Collector, Baheri District Bareilly. All the orders were passed on 1.5.2008 in case Nos. 169, 170, 171, 174 and 180 of 2007-08. The cases were registered under Section 202 and Rule 176-A of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In all the cases State was applicant and different petitioners were opposite parties in different cases. Against the said orders five revisions were filed being revision No. 92, 93, 94, 96 and 97 all of 2008-09. Commissioner, Bareilly division Bareilly dismissed the revisions on 28.5.2009. The said order has also been challenged through the first writ petition.

3. Exactly similar orders were passed against the petitioner of the second writ petition. Number of the case decided by the Deputy Collector against the petitioner on 15.9.2008 is 185 of 2007-08. Revision filed against the same being revision No. 95 of 2008-09 was dismissed by Commissioner, Bareilly division, Bareilly on 28.5.2009. The said orders have been challenged through second writ petition.

4. In the orders passed by Deputy Collector and challenged through the first writ petition detailed reasons were given. However, in the order passed by Deputy Collector challenged through the second writ petition order was passed mainly on the ground that petitioner did not appear inspite of knowledge of the case. However, the brief reasons given were the same as were given in detail in the orders challenged through the first writ petition.

5. The Deputy Collector in his orders dated 1.5.2008 challenged through the first writ petition held that petitioners were recorded as asami in the revenue records and maximum period of asami patta was five years by virtue of Rule 176-A of the Rules framed under U.P.Z.A.L.R Act hence they were liable to be evicted and their names were liable to be expunged from the revenue records. It was also mentioned that in the revenue records names of the petitioners were mentioned in Shreni-3 as asami. Accordingly, it was directed that names of the petitioners should be expunged from revenue records and it was directed that the land shall be entered in its original category. The learned Commissioner placed reliance upon the authority of this Court reported in Hari Ram v. Collector, 2004 (97) R.D. 360. Both the Courts below referred to khatauni of 1415-20 fasli. Annexure-5-A to the first writ petition is copy of the said khatauni in respect of Ram Charan and Har Prasad. Har Prasad is petitioner No. 2 in the first writ petition. In the said khatauni under column No. 3 which deals with year in which for the first time rights accrue, the words mentioned are “prior to 1360 fasli”. 1360 fasli corresponds to 1.7.1952 to 30.6.1953. Zamindari was abolished in Uttar Pradesh on 1.7.1952. It means that Ram Charan and Har Prasad were entered as asamis prior to Zamindari abolition or at least at the time of Zamindari abolition. Similar is the position of khatauni of the said period annexed as Annexure-1 to the second writ petition. In the said khatauni name of Bhoopal is entered and period of accrual of right is shown to be prior to 1360 fasli. It has been stated that similar is the position of entries in the khataunis of other petitioners.

6. Rule 176-A of U.P.Z.A.L.R Rules deals with asami pattas granted by Gaon sabha under Section 197 U.P.Z.A.L.R Act. The exact words are as follows :

“Provided that no lease shall be made to a asami for a period exceeding five years.”

7. If the petitioners were re