JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Ramesh Pundir, Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, counsel for respondent No.5 Gaon Sabha.

2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally without calling the counter affidavit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that khata No.186 Plot Nos.152/1 M area 0.205 hectare; 152/2 M area 0.039 hectare and 152/3 M area 0.009 hectare total area 0.253 hectare situated in Village Sabalgarh, Pargana and Tehsil-Najibabad, District-Bijnor, was recorded in the name of Tasleem Ahmad son of Mohd. Haneef and Smt. Khatija wife of Mohd. Haneef as bhumidhar with transferable rights. Copy of the revenue record has been annexed as annexure No.1 to the writ petition in order to demonstrate that aforementioned plots were recorded as bhumidhari plot of Tasleem Ahmad and Smt. Khatija. Mohd. Haneef. Mr. Tasleem Ahmad son of Mohd. Haneef sold out his 1/2 share to Mahmood Ahmad son of Shafiq Ahmad, who is petitioner No.1 in the instant petition through registered sale deed dated 03.05.2011. On the basis of sale deed executed on 03.05.2011, the name of petitioners were accordingly recorded in the revenue record. Copy of the sale deed as well as revenue record containing name of the petitioners have been annexed as Annexure Nos.2 & 3 to the writ petition. Petitioners are stated to be in actual physical and cultivatory possession over the purchased plot No.152 M area 0.253 hectare. During consolidation operation on the basis of report of Lekhpal, proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been initiated by the State respondents and without giving notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the petitioners' entry has been expunged vide order dated 26.08.2016. Against the order dated 26.08.2016 passed by Consolidation Officer, Appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2018. Against the appellate order dated 31.05.2018, petitioners filed Revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, which has been dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 27.01.2023, hence this writ petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioners are submitted that petitioners are recorded tenure holders of the plot in dispute and in the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, the name of the petitioners has been expunged without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further submitted that title objection has been decided in arbitrarily manner without following mandatory provisions as contained under Rule 25-A and Rule 26(2) of U.P.C.H. Rules. He next submitted that against the order of Consolidation Officer, Appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed but the same was also dismissed only on the ground that plot in dispute is pond. He next submitted that against the appellate order revision filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed in arbitrary manner.

5. Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1993 RD 32 Raja Ram vs. D.D.C. Basti and others in which this court has held that provisions contained under Rule 26(2) of U.P.C.H. Rules is mandatory in nature and order passed without following the provisions contained under Rule 26(2) of U.P.C.H. Rules is illegal.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and Counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that land in dispute was recorded as pond as such no right will accrue to the petitioners or petitioners' vendor. He further submitted that Consolidation Authorities have rightly decided the matter and the petitioners' entry has been rightly expunged, as such, no interference is required against the impugned orders.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioners were recorded tenure holder of the plot in dispute at the time of initiation of the proc