Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation affirming the order passed by the of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, whereby, the order of the Consolidation Officer directing to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue record has been reversed.

3. During consolidation proceedings objection came to be filed by the petitioner under Section 9(A)2 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, before the Consolidation Officer contending that he is landless agricultural labour belonging to scheduled caste community and is in possession of the disputed property prior to the cut of date i.e. 30 June 1985, therefore, the disputed plot stood settled as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights in terms of Section 122-B (4F) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act). The objection was allowed upon recording the statement of one Tulsi and member of the Consolidation Committee.

4. Aggrieved, Gaon Sabha preferred an appeal which was allowed on 30 December 2012 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Petitioner assailed the appellate order in revision which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

5. The dispute pertains to gata No. 376 plot No. 2006 admeasuring 3-0-0 bigha recorded “banjar” in the basic year khatauni, thus, vesting in the Gaon Sabha. In the impugned order, the revisional authority would note that to confer benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the Act, the occupant would have to prove and demonstrate continuous possession. The possession, however, was proved by the petitioner by leading oral evidence, whereas, there being no documentary evidence, viz. khasra (field register) etc. to show that petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute as unauthorized occupant. Merely on caste certificate and statement of two witnesses would not be sufficient to confer benefit of Section 122B (4F), without there being documentary evidence showing possession. Further, the Consolidation Officer would have no authority to exercise power or jurisdiction under Section 122B(4F).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner belongs to scheduled caste community and is in possession of the disputed plot for several years prior to the cut of date. The possession was proved by the petitioner by leading oral evidence. He would further submit that in the basic year khatauni, the land is recorded banjar, therefore, the objection filed before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9(A)2 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to expunge the entry of the Gaon Sabha and record the name of the petitioner would be maintainable before the consolidation authorities.

7. In rebuttal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the contesting Gaon Sabha would submit that the impugned order is just and lawful, there is no documentary evidence available on record to show the continuous possession of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer would have no authority to determine and decide the right of the parties on the date of notification i.e. 1981, issued under Section 4 of the Act. The impugned orders calls for no interference.

8. Facts interse parties are not in dispute.

9. On rival submissions, the issue for determinations is: (i) whether, possession of the land vesting in the Gaon Sabha could have been proved by merely leading oral evidence; (ii) whether, the Consolidation Officer would have jurisdiction under Section 122B (4F) of the Act.

10. To appreciate the issues, reference to Section 122B is necessary. The said section prescribes the procedure for eviction of a person wrongly occupying or damaging or misappropriating the property vesting in Gaon Sabha or a local authority. The Land Management Committee or Local Authority as the case may be, shall inform the Assistant Collector and thereupon the Assistant Co