ORDER R.S. Sing, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 17-1-1977 dismissing the second appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that during the consolidation of holdings operations an application was moved on 10-11-1965 by the plaintiff-Dharamshala Bilaspur through Sri Kishan Dass, its manager. Along with this application an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. The land in dispute by order dated 26-5-66 was allotted to the plaintiff as sirdar. Subsequently a reference was made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that the plaintiff may be legally only assami and the Deputy Director of Consolidation may pass suitable orders. There upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation modified the previous allotment order to the effect that the plaintiff-respondent is assami of the land in dispute and not sirdar. Notification under S. 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued on 27-11-1965 regarding the village in question. Thereafter the present suit under S. 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed on 23-6-67 by the plaintiff-respondent for the ejectment of the petitioner on the allegation that he has trespassed in the year 1373 Fasli and is liable to ejectment. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendant-petitioner on the ground that the allotment order made in favour of the plaintiff-respondent after notification under S. 52 of the U. P. C. H. Act is illegal. It was further alleged that the land of public utility cannot be legally allotted in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondent has no title and right to file a suit for ejectment of the defendant petitioner. The petitioner also asserted that as he had been in possession for more than twelve years, he is not a trespasser. It was also asserted that Sri Kishan Dass is not the Manager of the Dharamshala. Therefore, the suit was not properly filed. 4. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court which was allowed by the Addl. Commissioner and the order of the Additional Commissioner was affirmed in second appeal by the Board of Revenue. The defendant petitioner has challenged the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner before this Court in this writ petition. 5. The plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court which was allowed by the Addl. Commissioner and the order of the Additional Commissioner was affirmed in second appeal by the Board of Revenue. The defendant petitioner has challenged the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner before this Court in this writ petition. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to allot land of public utility to a Dharamshala. Therefore, the order of allotment was void and S. 49 of the U. P. C. H. Act is no bar. It was further contended that Sri Kishan Dass was not the Manager of the Dharamshala and as such he had no right to file a suit on behalf of the Dharamshala. It was further contended that the Board of Revenue has dismissed the appeal merely on the ground that the petitioner is a trespasser without considering the title of the plaintiff-respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent in reply contended that the writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction and the petitioner who is admittedly a trespasser deserves no relief from this Court in writ jurisdiction. He placed reliance on Pooran Singh v. Addl. Commr., Agra ( AIR 1957 All 276 ). It was further contended that Sri Kishan Dass was the Manager and the allotment made by the Consolidation authorities in favour of the plaintiff respondent was valid. The suit has been filed by Dharamshala, Bilaspur through Sri Kishan Dass as its Manager. The authority of Sri Kishan Dass as Manager was filed by the plaintiff before the trial court and the same was contested by the defendant petitioner. A specific issue was framed by the trial court as issue No. 5 in this regard. The trial court considered this issue and relying on the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent recorded a finding that Sri Kishan Dass is the Manager of the Dharamshala and can sue on its behalf. This finding has not been upset by any of the appellate courts. No material has been placed before this Court in writ petition to come to a different conclusion. Therefore, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the trial c.ourt that Sri Kishan Dass was the Manager of the plaintiff-Dharamshala is erroneous in law. 7. This finding has not been upset by any of the appellate courts. No material has been placed before this Court in writ petition to come to a different conclusion. Therefore, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the trial c.ourt that Sri Kishan Dass was the Manager of the plaintiff-Dharamshala is erroneous in law. 7. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. This is an admitted fact that the consolidation of holdings proceedings took place in the village. A person can claim title in any land only when he has been allotted the land during the consolidation of holdings proceedings as bhumidhar or assami. A person who has not been allotted any land by the consolidation authorities in any of the capacities as bhumidhar or assami can possibly have no title. It has not been proved in this case that the land in dispute was allotted in favour of the petitioner in any capacity. Therefore, this is apparent that the petitioner has got no title in the land in dispute. No doubt the petitioner could acquire title by remaining in adverse possession for more than the statutory period under S. 210 of the U.P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. But the suit was filed soon after the notification under S. 52 of the U. P. C. H. Act was issued. Therefore, no time was available to the petitioner to acquire sirdari rights on the basis of the wrongful possession under S. 210 of the U.P. Z. A. & L.R. Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent pointed out that the Additional Commissioner in paras 5 and 8 of his judgment has mentioned that admittedly the defendants are trespassers. The learned counsel for the petitioner objected to it. According to him this observation is wrong. Nevertheless as on the facts discussed above the status of the petitioner cannot be other than that of a trespasser. 8. The title of the plaintiff-respondent can be questioned by the Gaon Sabha or the State in case he has no title in the land in dispute. Both the State and the Gaon Sabha are parties from the very beginning. But it appears that no objection was raised on their behalf that the plaintiff-respondent has no title. The plaintiff-respondent's title is challenged only by the petitioner who is nothing but a trespasser. Both the State and the Gaon Sabha are parties from the very beginning. But it appears that no objection was raised on their behalf that the plaintiff-respondent has no title. The plaintiff-respondent's title is challenged only by the petitioner who is nothing but a trespasser. The question is where the title of the plaintiff-respondent has not been challenged by the persons having title, can it be challenged before this Court by a person who himself is a person having no title i.e. trespasser. In Pooran Singh v. Addl. Commr., Agra ( AIR 1957 All 276 ) (supra) it has been clearly held as under (at p. 278) : - "The powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution on the High Courts are certainly very wide and confer on them a discretion of most extensive nature. That discretion, however, must necessarily be exercised in accordance with judicial considerations and well established principles. The High Court will certainly not hesitate in issuing appropriate direction, order or writ when necessary, but no person can claim to be entitled to such an order or writ as a matter of course without satisfying the High Court that the case is suitable one for the issue of such an order of writ. Thus the mere fact that an order is without jurisdiction or that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient to justify the issue of a writ. In addition to that it must be established that the order has resulted in manifest injustice. It is, therefore, up to the High Court to refuse to issue a writ if it feels that if the writ prayed for is issued it will clearly effectuate an injustice in the case." 9. In view of the above discussion I am satisfied that the petitioner having failed to establish his title in the land in dispute, is not entitled to challenge the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction before this court and no case for interference has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs..