Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J.—Heard Sri B.N.Upadhyaa, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing and Sri Diwarkar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was given lease of agricultural land under Government Policy offering lease of land for promotion of sterilization. The lease was granted on 12.1.1973 by Gaon Sabha in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner came in possession thereof immediately. The lease dated 12.1.973 executed by Gaon Sbha has not been disputed. However, when the village got notified under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1953), the petitioner filed an objection to mutate the name in the revenue records in pursuance of the lease dated 12th January, 1973, which was granted to him and prayed that the name of the Gaon Sabha over the land in question may be struck off. The Consolidation Officer held that lease could not have been granted in the first instance; because the petitioner was not landless person; and secondly, the land was a public utility land being used as passage/road. Thus objection of the petitioner was rejected and against that, petitioner preferred an appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation raising specific plea that Consolidation Officer could not have entered into question if validity of lease as separate procedure was providing for cancellation of the same under Section 198 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. However, Settlement Officer Consolidation too dismissed the appeal and petitioner then preferred revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation.

3. Besides the plea of jurisdiction, it was pleaded that it was not a case of fraud or forgery, therefore Consolidation Authority were not competent enough to look into those documents from which title was derived and which were not forged or void documents. However, revision filed before the Deputy Director, Consolidation met the same fate revision too came to be dismissed and hence the present writ petition before this Court.

4. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Consolidation Authorities, and have examined the pleadings and records filed by the parties.

5. In the first instance, it is to be seen whether there was any stand taken by the Gaon Sabha that lease in question was result of an act of fraud or forgery and therefore, no title or right accrued from such document. Having gone through t he orders of Consolidation Authorities, I find that objection that was taken by the Gaon Sabha before Consolidation Authority, no such plea was taken and on the contrary in the counter-affidavit filed by the Gaon Sabha, in the writ petition, the plea taken is that Gaon Sabha wrongly granted leased to the petitioner.

6. Gaon Sabha has admitted execution of lease in favour of the petitioner and no second opinion can be taken in respect thereof. It is well-settled law that only exception to authority going into question of rights and title in a collateral or other proceedings other than those provided specifically in an Act are those cases were fraud and forgery is pleaded. There is no such plea as alleged here in this case. The question of title flowing from the lease should have been accepted by the Consolidation Authorities.

7. In the second instance, it has to be seen as to whether Consolidation Authorities were competent to look into the validity of lease on the ground that on the spot it seems to be public utility land. The Supreme Court in a number of decisions has held that when law requires anything to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in that manner only. In a recent judgment State of Kerala and others v. Kerala Rare Earth Minerals Ltd. and others, 2016 (6) SCC 323, Apex Court vide para 17 holds:

“It is well-settled that if the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then, in order to be valid the act must be done in the prescribed manner alone [See: Commissioner