Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12858-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29978 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mohammad Israr Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Azad Rai,C.S.C.,Rakesh Dubey Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. Heard Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.4. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to restrain the respondents from demolishing the petitioner's house situated over old Gata No.364 ad-measuring 5 Bighas, 18 Biswa corresponding to new No.586 in Village Lehadi Tappa Chaurasi, Pargana Khairagarh, Tehsil Meja, District Prayagraj. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though an order under Section 122 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was passed against the petitioner's father holding him to be trespasser but the petitioner at that stage was only 7 years old. It is, therefore, submitted that continuous possession of the petitioner is liable to be protected. It is also submitted that Tehsildar in his order has also recorded that prior to the consolidation proceedings, the petitioner was recorded over the land but in consolidation proceedings, the land got recorded as 'Kabristan' (cemetery). The present writ petition appears to have been filed on complete misconstruction of the statutory scheme. It is admitted that the petitioner or his father is not recorded over the land in question. In the scheme initiated under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, at the time of commencement of such proceedings, if a person was ousted from category of the land owner, an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. CH Act would be required to be filed for recognizing the right of such person. Once such right has not been recognized, entries recorded during consolidation proceeding would attain finality and a subsequent suit under Section 49 of the U.P. CH Act, would stand barred. It is admitted that the petitioner is not recorded and once the proceedings against the petitioner's father were undertaken under Section 122 B of the Act, only remedy available to the petitioner would be to seek declaration under Section 229B of the Act. That having not been done, the petitioner would not be entitled to issuance of a writ for protection of such illegal possession. Leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy before the competent forum, this petition is consigned to the records. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 rkg Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad