Hon’ble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Namwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. C. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf the State and perused the record.

2. The dispute involved in the present writ petition pertains to plot No. 477, area 200 Kadi situated in village-Sidha Sultanpur, Tappa-Dubaitha, Pargana-Nizamabad, Tehsil-Sadar (now Nizamabad) District-Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the disputed plot’). The disputed plot was recorded as ‘Abadi’ in the basic year and during consolidation operation the same was kept out of the consolidation proceedings. During the consolidation survey the disputed plot was partitioned in two parts namely, plot No. 477/1 and plot No. 477/2 each having an area of 100 Kadi and earmarked for extension of ‘Abadi’ in C. H. Form 2-A. It appears that the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 filed objection under Section 9 A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of disputed plot before the Consolidation Officer, Sagri Azamgarh claiming that the disputed plot had been wrongly partitioned during the consolidation survey and plot No. 477/2 which was shown in the survey map in the western side, be shown in the eastern side and plot No. 477/1 which was shown in the survey map in the western side, likewise be shown in the eastern side on the ground that the land in dispute was ‘Abadi’ of the contesting respondents and their house was situated over the part of the land in dispute. The said objection was registered as Case No. 6733 of 1985; Ajay others v. State of U. P. and another. The Consolidation Officer made spot inspection and prepared inspection memo on 19.9.2002. Against the said inspection memo, the petitioners filed objection dated 10.10.2002, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 13.3.2003, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, decided the Case No. 6733 of 1985 allowing the objection of the contesting respondents. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer the petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which was registered as Appeal No. 3483 of 2003 and transferred for disposal before the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Azamgarh who vide his order dated 31.5.2004 allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 13.3.2003 restoring the position of the disputed plot as shown in the survey map. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), the contesting respondents preferred a revision being Revision No. 756 under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh which was allowed vide his order dated 27.12.2005, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition.

3. This order dated 27.12.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh without considering the objection as well as written arguments filed by the petitioners. He next contended that the disputed plot was earmarked for the extension of ‘Abadi’ during the survey and thus, the consolidation authorities lacked jurisdiction to entertain any objection in respect of the disputed plot but the Deputy Director of Consolidation totally failed to consider this aspect of the matter and wrongly allowed the revision filed by the contesting respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the disputed plot was recorded as “Abadi”, as would be evident from the perusal of C.H. Form 2-A and hence the plot in dispute was covered under the Explanation clause of Section 3 and thus, it neither comes under the definition of land nor holding.

6. Per contra,