Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47905 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 786 of 2025 Petitioner :- Siya Ram And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Shravasti And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrish Kumar Gaur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Shrish Kumar Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed the following reliefs:- "i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.2025 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to correct the land map in accordance with the order dated 23.10.1997. The gata No. 226 should be showing in place of gata no. 225 and gata no. 225 be shown in place of gata no. 226. In other words the gata no. 225 should be replaced of gata no. 226 and gata no. 226 be replaced by the gata no. 225 and accordingly the land map of the village may be corrected. iii. To issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. " 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the father of the petitioners, namely, Pargat and husband of opposite party no.3 and father of opposite parties no. 4 and 5 late Ram Tej were co-sharers of Gata No. 238/2 situated at Village Lakhna, Pargana Bahraich, Tehsil Ikauna, District Shrawasti. During the consolidation proceedings an objection was filed under Section 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer, Payagpur regarding check no. 101. The Consolidation Officer after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, accepted the objections filed by the petitioners by means of order dated 23.10.1997 and exchanged the Gata number of the father of the petitioners with the father of private respondents. 5. It has been submitted that though a revision was preferred by the petitioner and the order dated 23.10.1997 was upheld during the entire consolidation proceedings. Subsequently the order was also complied with under Rule C.H. 23 part-I and also while preparing C.H. 41 and C.H. 45. 6. It has further been submitted that at the stage of finalization of land map the order dated 23.10.1997 was not carried out and with regard to the said grievance the petitioners had moved an application under Section 38(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which has been dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 by the District Magistrate, Shrawasti on the ground of alternate remedy holding that the petitioner has efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Thereafter the petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, where the revision has been dismissed on the ground of delay. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite appropriate orders having been passed by the Consolidation Officer and their objections have been allowed still the map depicts wrong gata number in favour of the petitioners as well as the private respondents, which deserves to be corrected. 8. At this stage a preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel, it was submitted that in case the petitioners contend that the proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act attained finality by means of order dated 23.10.1997 that the petitioners have efficacious remedy under Rule 109A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules 1954, where all the orders passed by Consolidation Officer or the Tehsildar can be given effect to after giving full opportuntiy of hearing to the parties concerned. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage, does not dispute the objections raised by the learned Standing Counsel and submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate application under Rule 109A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ruled, 1954. 10. In the light of the above, the petition is dismissed as not pressed. It is further provided that in case the petitioners file application under Rule 109 A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules,1954, within next two weeks, the Competent Authority shall proceed and conclude the same expeditiously, in accordance with law. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench