JUDGMENT A.P. Sharma, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition is directed as against the orders passed by opposite party nos. 1 and 2 namely the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Pratapgarh in a proceeding under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. According to the petitioner, the disputed plot is plot no. 2932 pertaining to khata no. 749 measuring 2.3 acres which is alleged to have been recorded in the basic year in the name of the petitioner. An objection was filed by the contesting respondent to the effect that he is sirdar of the land in dispute and it is also alleged that the entry in the revenue record recording the name of the petitioner as Sirdar is incorrect and Farji. The matter is contested inter se between the parties. The main contest of the petitioner which had been throughout before the consolidation authorities and which is also raised before me is that he was found to be Adhivasi Sirdar and Z.A. Form No. 101 was prepared with respect to this land and thus the petitioner became Adhivasi and Sirdar of the land in dispute. It is contended that the name of the petitioner was rightly recorded. 3. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the contested claim of the parties decided in favour of the petitioner and thus he dismissed the objection of the contesting respondent and maintained the basic year entry in the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved as against the said order an appeal has been preferred by the contesting respondent. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer. He, in fact, found that the entry in favour of the petitioner is fictitious and farji and also held that merely on the basis of issuance of the Z.A. Form No. 101 could not confer title of the land in favour of the petitioner. He has also recorded a finding that the petitioner has neither title nor possession. Aggrieved as against that order a revision was preferred by the petitioner and the revisional authority also upheld the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and dismissed the revision. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved, as against the two orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has preferred the present writ petition. 5. Aggrieved as against that order a revision was preferred by the petitioner and the revisional authority also upheld the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and dismissed the revision. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved, as against the two orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has preferred the present writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have perused both the impugned orders and I do not find any infirmity or any such illegality which calls for any interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. After considering all the matter the Deputy Director of Consolidation clearly recorded a finding against the petitioner regarding the entry in his favour and has also found the petitioner not in possession of the land in dispute. 6. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that in fact, right of the contesting respondent extinguished in view of the right being matured in favour of the petitioner under Section 240 (g) (2) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. This argument cannot be accepted. This argument is raised merely on the basis of issuance of Z.A. Form No. 101. Even if it be accepted, it cannot confer any right in favour of the petitioner. In fact, after issuance of the Z.A. Form no. 101 subsequently Z.A. Form no. 112 is prepared regarding compensation table under Section 240-A. It has not been shown that actually apart from issuance of Z.A. Form no. 101 any subsequent order in favour of the petitioner has been passed to confer any right or title in his favour. Thus the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 7. I have perused both the impugned orders passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively and I find that they have given good reason which does not call for any interference by this Court. The present petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Costs on parties.