HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 382 of 2008 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. C. M. Application No.5 of 2025-for deleting the petitioner No.4. Heard Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3. 1. The cause shown in the application that on the death of petitioner No.4 no cause of action survives against her as her sons are already petitioner No.s 1, 2 and 3 in the petition, is found sufficient. The application is allowed. 2. Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to delete petitioner No.4 from the array of the petitioners. 3. Order on memo of the petition Heard Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3. 1. By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have challenged order dated 20.12.2007 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as order dated 20.9.2007 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and also the order dated 5.6.2006 passed by Consolidation Officer, Harinteenganj, Tehsil Milkipur, District 2. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Narendra Singh, Dwijendra Mishra, Ram Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ghanshyam Verma, Guru Saran Lal Verma Sher Bahadur And 3 Ors. .....Petitioner(s) D.D.C.Faizabad And 4 Ors. .....Respondent(s) Faizabad. It has been submitted that the petitioners are recorded tenure holders of chak No.s 567 and 548 situated at Village Urua Vaishpur Dadwa, Pargana Paschim Rath, Tehsil Milkipur, District Faizabad. It is stated that during the consolidation operations, Assistant Consolidation Officer had allotted plot No.s 969/1, 968, 966 and 844/850/1.850/2/851/3 to the petitioners on 11.6.2006. As they were satisfied with aforesaid allocation they did not file any objection. It is submitted that being aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer 5.6.2006 the petitioners had preferred an appeal under Section 21 (2) before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Faizabad who confirmed the order dated 5.6.2006 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners vide order dated 20.9.2007. 3. Against the order dated 20.9.2007 the petitioners had preferred a revision which has also been rejected by the revisional authority by means of order dated 20.12.2007 and it is in the present petition that the petitioners have challenged the validity of aforesaid orders. 4. It is the claim of the petitioners that during consolidation proceedings the petitioners have been given first chak in gata No.969 which is on original holding of the petitioners and also gata No.s 850 and 851 which are also on his original holding. The dispute raised by the petitioners is with regard to their chak given to them at gata No.902 while the petitioners want that inspite of gata No.902 the petitioners should be granted chak at gata No.844. It is case of the petitioners that gata No.850 is adjacent to gata No.844 and accordingly their claim was duly considered by the revisional authority but it was found that the petitioner has not made any other chak holder as a party and, therefore, there was a serious defect in that revision preferred by the petitioners. It was further considered that in case claim of the petitioners was allowed then chakdar no.538 would be granted five chaks and accordingly it is in aforesaid circumstances it was found that the claim of the petitioner was not legally sustainable and, therefore, the revision has been rejected. 5. WRIB No. 382 of 2008 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned orders has submitted that he has made all the chak holders as necessary parties but neither the copy of the revision has been annexed along with the writ petition nor is there averment made by him in the writ petition in this regard. This being a question of fact can be interfered only when there is sufficient material on record. It was open for the petitioner to have filed copy of the revision to demonstrate that he had made the concerned chakholdes as parties but in absence of copy of revision no finding can be returned in favour of the petitioner considering the fact that the revisional authority has clearly held that affected chak holders were not made a party by the petitioners. Apart from the above, we find that claim of the petitioner was not sustainable as in case the the claim was not challenged then chakdar No.538 would be affected and in such a situation it would be contrary to the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any ground for interference in any of the orders assailed in the present writ petition. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 7. December 12, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 382 of 2008 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench