HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3039 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Prakash Srivtastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the gram panchayat and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 passed by D.D.C., Basti in Revision No.0184 of 2019 (Ram Pratap and others Vs. Kripa Shankar Pandey and others) under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 as well as order dated 24.10.1970 passed by SOC Basti." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order has been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner as such the same should be set aside. He further submitted that disputed plot was recorded as Bhita and khalihan, as such no right will accrue in favour of private respondents in respect to the plot in question. He submitted that order dated 24.10.1970 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal under section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was wholly illegal, as such the order dated 24.10.1970 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that property in question is Gram Sabha property as such petitioner who is the resident of the same village is entitled to file writ petition before this court challenging the order dated 05.02.2025 and 24.10.1970. He further submitted that both impugned orders should be set aside and matter Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta Sandeep Chauhan .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Basti And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) should be sent back before appellate Court to decide appeal under section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H.Act afresh. 4. I have considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that title appeal has been decided by appellate Court on 24.10.1970. There is also no dispute about the fact that time barred revision filed by certain persons under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act has been dismissed as not pressed under the impugned revisional order dated 05.02.2025. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner was not a party in the proceeding. 6. Since the appellate jurisdiction was exercised under section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act by Settlement Officer Consolidation by passing the order dated 24.10.1970 as such filing of revision after about 49 year or writ petition before this court at the instance of the petitioner who was not party in appeal or revision for setting aside the appellate order dated 24.10.1970 is total abuse of the process of law. 7. It is also material to mention that revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by private respondents has been dismissed as not pressed. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the matter. 9.The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. October 9, 2025 PS* WRIB No. 3039 of 2025 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad