HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1057 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Janardan Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of State - respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 while Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.4- Gram Panchayat. 2. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a recorded tenure holder of gata No.604 and after the consolidation proceedings new number 870 was allotted to the petitioner. It is in the consolidation proceedings that allocation was made on 16.12.2017 on his original holding by Consolidation Officer, Sawayajpur, Hardoi and subsequently the consolidation proceedings have concluded and notification under Section 52 have also been published. The revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 4. The issue pertaining to the valuation of the land could have been raised by the tenure holder only at the stage of Section 9 and in case no any such objection has been raised then no such objection can be raised at any subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. It has been stated that form 5 was duly distributed to all the tenure holders and they were fully aware of the valuation made of the lands and with regard to petitioner's land valuation was fixed of 90 paise and no objection was filed by the petitioner at the stage of Section 9 A 2 of Act of 1953 and after conclusion of the consolidation proceedings no such objection was raised by the petitioner in the revision. Accordingly the revision was dismissed. 5. Accordingly the revision was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate before this Court or indicate any provision as to how the dispute as raised by the petitioner with regard to valuation of a land can be raised subsequent to the stage under Section 9 of Consolidation of Holdings Act and accordingly could not indicate as to how interference can be made by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Janardan Dixit Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Yogendra Kumar Mishra .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 226/227 of the Constitution of India with regard to the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 6. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition stating that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the petitioner not having raised any objection at the stage of valuation could not be permitted to raise the same at the subsequent stage of proceedings in absence of statutory provision or rule. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation and once having failed to exercise his option of preferring objection under Section 9 A 2 he is prevented from raising the same at the subsequent stage of the proceedings. It is further noticed that similar provision exists under Section 11 A of the Act of 1953 which also prevents the petitioner from raising such a dispute at the subsequent stage of the proceedings. As such, no interference is required to be made and the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. November 4, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 1057 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench