To maintain a cancellation proceeding, the petitioner must demonstrate being aggrieved by the decision. The Gaon Sabha must follow prescribed procedures for filing a writ petition.

Krishna Murari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel.

2. The facts of the case in brief as stated in the writ petition are that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and certain other persons were allotted land by the Gaon Sabha in 1964. The petitioner No. 1 and others initiated proceedings for cancellation of the said allotment which was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as barred by time. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer continued the proceedings suo motu. The proceedings went up to the Board of Revenue and were abated on 26.3.1970, due to consolidation operation in the village. In the consolidation proceedings petitioners again filed objection seeking cancellation of the allotment made in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and to expunge their name from the disputed plots. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 31.12.1968 dismissed the objection. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground that the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to consider the validity of the lease granted by the Gaon Sabha. The revision filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 31.12.1970. Thereafter, a review petition was filed before Board of Revenue for review/recall of the order dated 26.3.1970. The Board of Revenue dismissed the review on 20.11.1974 on the ground that the Consolidation Authorities have jurisdiction to consider the validity of the lease and as such the review was not maintainable. The petitioners again approached the Deputy Director of Consolidation for reviewing the order dated 13.12.1970. The said review application was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 18.1.1975 on the ground that Consolidation Authorities are not vested with any power of review. In these sets of facts, the present writ petition has been filed seeking followed reliefs :

(i) to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the orders dated 18.10.1975, 31.12.1970, 26.3.1970 and 31.12.1968, passed by the opposite party Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

(ii) to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 20.11.1974 in case, it is found that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to consider the case of the petitioners.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the consolidation authorities or the revenue authorities to adjudicate the rights of the petitioners and to go into the validity of the patta granted in favour.

(iv) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court deems fit, proper in the circumstances of the case and to which the petitioners may be found entitled to under law.

(v) to issue an order or direction awarding costs of this petition to the petitioners.

3. It is no doubt correct that when the proceedings were pending before the Consolidation Authorities, there were conflicting views on the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities to consider the validity of lease granted by Gaon Sabha. However, this controversy was decided by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Similesh Kumar v. Gaon Sabha, 1977 ALJ 310. The Full Bench opined that the Consolidation Authorities cannot adjudicate upon the validity of the lease nor the same can be cancelled or ignored by them.

4. However the Full Bench of Similesh Kumar (supra) came for consideration by the Honble Apex Court in the case of U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2000 (2) AWC 933 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 878. Relying upon the earlier decision in the case of Gorakh Nath Dubey v. Hari Narain Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2451, the Honble Apex Court held that in case the lease is void the same can be ignored by the consolidation authorities, and they would be