JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State. 2. Under challenge are the order(s) dated 29.07.1985 passed by the respondent No.1 -Deputy Director of Consolidation, Behraich, 14.09.1985 passed by the respondent No.2-Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Behraich and 19.12.1985 passed by the Consolidation Officer. 3. The issue in the present petition relates to allotment of Chak(s) during consolidation proceedings. Record of the petition shows that the Assistant Consolidation Officer provided Chak(s) to petitioner (Lal Mani now Deceased) on the original holdings/gata(s) including Gata(s) No. 2916 and 2917 and further, the chak which was carved out by Assistant Consolidation Officer was in front of home of the petitioner. Respondent No.3-Consolidation Officer, Bhinga, District-Behraich vide his order dated 19.07.1985 provided Chak(s) to the private opposite parties in front of the house of the petitioner. Thus, the Consolidation Officer disturbed arrangement/allotment made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the respondent No.2-Settlement Officer of Consolidation by way of filing the appeal under Section 21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") and the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.09.1985. Thereafter, original petitioner (Lal Mani now Deceased) preferred the revision under Section 48 of the Act of 1953, which was partly allowed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Behraich whereby he provided 250 Kadi to the petitioner over Gata No. 2916 and 2917. 4. Being aggrieved, by the orders aforesaid, present petition was filed. 5. While entertaining the present petition, this Court passed the interim order on 11.04.1986. 6. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court passed the following order on 08.11.2021:- "This is an old writ petition of the year 1986. It is listed for orders today. This petition was admitted to hearing by an order dated 11.04.1986 and by an order of the said date, separately made on the stay application, the operation of the order dated 29.07.1985, 14.09.1985 and 19.12.1985 passed by the Consolidation Authorities and annexed as Annexure nos. 1, 2 and 3, was directed to remain stayed insofar as these orders relate to the petitioner. A perusal of the order sheet shows that steps to serve the respondents were also taken on 15.04.1986. However, there is no report regarding service; nor can there be a report. 1, 2 and 3, was directed to remain stayed insofar as these orders relate to the petitioner. A perusal of the order sheet shows that steps to serve the respondents were also taken on 15.04.1986. However, there is no report regarding service; nor can there be a report. It is surprising that no objection was put in by the Stamp Reporter or by the office while accepting requisites. The reason is that the petitioner has arrayed respondent no.4, Mooney Singh son of Mishri and respondent no.5, Rajeshwar son of Ambika, without mentioning their address. Against the name of Ambika, all that is said is resident of 'Sambharpurwa'. Nothing more has been mentioned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner says that the address of the said respondents is complete in his papers and is beyond dispute. It is: Village Sambharpurwa, Post Aggapur, Tehsil Bhinga, District Bahraich, which now lies in District Shravasti. In order to curtail any further delay in proceeding with this almost ancient writ petition arising out of a chak matter, this Court considers it appropriate to permit the learned Counsel to carry out the necessary corrections to the array of parties, giving the compete postal address of respondent nos. 4 and 5, during course of the day. Thereafter, he will have 48 hours' time to take steps to serve respondent nos.4 and 5 by RP AD afresh. In addition, the Pradhan, Village Sambharpurwa, Post Aggapur, Tehsil Bhinga, District Bahraich, which now lies in District Shravasti shall also cause notice of this petition to be served upon respondent nos.4 and 5, for which separate steps shall be taken by the petitioner by supplying two extra copies of the said writ petition. The office shall ensure that the copies of the writ petition, together with the notice, are delivered to the Pradhan for effecting service upon respondent nos.4 and 5. The notices for service through the Pradhan shall be routed through the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/District Magistrate, Shravasti within a week. The notice shall indicate that this petition shall be listed on 30.11.2021. The Pradhan shall submit his report regarding service through the District Magistrate. List this petition on 30.11.2021 along with a complete report by the office regarding service, including the postal track and the report received from the District Magistrate, Shravasti. The notice shall indicate that this petition shall be listed on 30.11.2021. The Pradhan shall submit his report regarding service through the District Magistrate. List this petition on 30.11.2021 along with a complete report by the office regarding service, including the postal track and the report received from the District Magistrate, Shravasti. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the District Magistrate, Shravasti by the Senior Registrar within 24 hours." 7. Thereafter, this Court on 17.01.2023, passed the following order:- "Case called out in the revised list. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State are present. As per office report dated 29.11.2021, 19.10.2022 the service of notice upon private opposite parties is sufficient. In the interest of justice the case is adjourned for the day. List this case on 24.01.2023. On the next date of listing learned State counsel shall inform this Court about the present status of the property in issue." 8. In compliance of the aforesaid orders of this Court, learned counsel for the State placed before this Court a copy of the instructions dated 23.01.2023 wherein it has been indicated that the parties to the litigation are in possession over the gata(s) as indicated by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The said instructions are taken on record. Relevant portion of the same reads as under:- 9. It is settled principal of law that as per language couched in Section 19 of the Act of 1953 the allotment to the tenure holder should be made over their original holdings. In this case, it appears that the original holdings was not provided to the petitioner (Lal Mani now Deceased). Moreover, considering the fact, as appears from the instructions dated 23.01.2023, that the parties to the litigation are in possession of the Chak(s) allotted by Assistant Consolidation Officer and period of possession, I am of the view that any interference by this Court in the allotment made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer would be extremely iniquitous for the parties to the present petition. Accordingly, this Court finds that interference is required in the matter. 10. For these reasons, the orders dated 29.07.1985, 14.09.1985 and 19.12.1985 are hereby set aside so far as the same relate to the parties to the present petition. Accordingly, this Court finds that interference is required in the matter. 10. For these reasons, the orders dated 29.07.1985, 14.09.1985 and 19.12.1985 are hereby set aside so far as the same relate to the parties to the present petition. The Chak(s) as indicated in the report of Assistant Consolidation Officer, over which they are in possession, be provided to the parties to the present petition. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed.