Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77743 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1840 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kamleshwar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 respondent no. 2/Deputy Director of Consolidation Varanasi by which rejected the modification application/Amendment Application dated 06.06.2024 filed by the petitioner in order dated 09.01.2019 passed by respondent no. 2 in reference no. 56 of 2019 (Kamleshwar Versus State) under Section 48(3) of the U.P.C.H. Act village Pahari, Pargana Dehat Amanat, Tehsil and District Varanasi. ii). Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. iii). Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order dated 09.01.2019 passed under Section 48(3) of the U.P.C.H. Act an application for modification dated 06.06.2024 was filed on behalf of the petitioner but the same has been rejected on misconceived ground under the impugned order dated 07.04.2025. He further submitted that plot no. 575 cannot be allotted to petitioner as construction of private respondents are situated therein. He next submitted that application filed by the petitioner is modification application, as such the same cannot be rejected on the ground that application is review application. He submitted that impugned order should be set aside and modification application dated 06.06.20224 filed on behalf of the petitioner should be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Sri Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submitted that no interference is required against the order impugned as earlier application filed on behalf of the petitioner has already been allowed. He further submitted that the subsequent modification application has been filed after five years from the date of passing the order dated 09.01.2019, as such the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected the modification application under the impugned order. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the facts that order dated 09.01.2019, under Section 48(3) of the U.P.C.H. Act was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner-Kamleshwar, who was applicant of the aforementioned proceeding under Section 48(3) of the U.P.C.H. Act. 7. The schedule attached with the order dated 09.01.2019 fully demonstrates that plot no. 575 new plot no. 420/1 has been taken out from the chak of the petitioner and petitioner has been allotted plot no. 439/1, new plot no. 618, plot no. 493M, new plot no. 1168 as well as plot no. 162 new plot no. 364M. The schedule further demonstrate that plot no 420/1 taken out from the chak of the petitioner has been reserved as 'Naveen Parti'. The filing of modification application after five years at the instance of petitioner raising misconceived demand cannot be entertained by Consolidation authorities. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected the petitioner's modification application under the impugned order. 8. No interference is required in the matter. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Neetu Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad