JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. The dispute relates to plot No. 495 which is alleged by the petitioners to be their original holding. It has been stated in the writ petition that originally the said plot was kept chak out and was not valued. At a later stage contesting respondent No. 4 in collusion with the consolidation authorities got it valued without any notice or knowledge to the petitioners. After being valued when the said plot was included in the chak of respondent No. 4 an objection was filed by the petitioners which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 15.1.1983. Revisions filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 23.3.1986. The Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, both, held that relief claimed by the petitioners regarding valuation and to keep the disputed plot chak out cannot be granted at the stage of chak allotment proceedings. A perusal of the objection filed by the petitioners as Annexure-1 to the writ petition also goes to show that only relief claimed was to set aside the valuation of the plot and to keep it chak out. The allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition that initially the plot in dispute was made chak out and was valued subsequently behind their back, have been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it has categorically been stated that petitioners had filed objection challenging the valuation which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 29.12.1981. Copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure-CA-1. It has further been stated that the said order was not challenged and became final. These facts have not been denied by the petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit. Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that though in the objection dated 22.2.1982 the petitioners did not claim allotment of the disputed plot in their chak but relief was claimed in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the same was also pressed during the course of arguments which has also been noted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in his judgment. This relief was also claimed and pressed in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, but both the authorities have wrongly and illegally not considered the same. 3. In reply it has been urged by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioners have deliberately concealed the fact of rejection of their objection, challenging the valuation, vide order dated 29.12.1981 with a view to mislead this Court and hence are not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It has further been urged that petitioners never filed any objection claiming allotment of the disputed plot in their chak and this relief was claimed for the first time in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the entire writ petition, there is not even a whisper with regard to the objection filed by the petitioners challenging the valuation of the plot in dispute and the order dated 29.12.1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer rejecting the said objection. Even after this fact brought on record by the respondents, no explanation has been given by the petitioners in their rejoinder affidavit. Thus it appears that the petitioners have deliberately concealed this fact in the writ petition and have deliberately made false averment that the plot in dispute was got valued by respondent No. 4 behind their back and without any notice or knowledge. Whereas the correct fact as emerges out from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioners had full knowledge about the plot being valued and had also challenged the same by filing objection which was dismissed. 6. It is no doubt correct that the land in dispute is situate adjacent to the main road and abadi and has become very valuable having attained the commercial nature. Being original holding and a land of valuable nature normally the petitioners would have been entitled for allotment of the same in their chak but deliberate act of the petitioners in concealing a very material fact with an oblique motive to mislead the Court disentitles them from the relief claimed in this regard under discretionary power conferred upon this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from above, there is another aspect of the matter. Apart from above, there is another aspect of the matter. The objection filed by the petitioners which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition normally appears to be an objection filed under Section 9A(2) of the Act though it has been urged that it was an objection under Section 20(2) of the Act. The objection itself mentions that it is under Section 9A(2) of the Act. The entire tenor of the objection further makes it very apparent that it is not an objection under Section 20(2). Even the relief claimed in the objection is that the plot may not be valued and be made chak out. The said objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 5.8.1982. The copy of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has not been brought on record of the writ petition by the petitioners. Thus this Court is at a loss to know whether the Consolidation Officer dismissed the same treating it to be an objection under Section 9A(2) or under Section 20(2) of the Act. The order of the Consolidation Officer was also not filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. All these facts indicate that the petitioners have deliberately not brought on record the order of the Consolidation Officer with some motive. 7. Be that as it may, the record of the writ petition as it stands, goes to show that the petitioners never filed any objection under Section 20(2) of the Act. After the first objection was dismissed on 22.2.1982 another objection dated 22.3.1982 was filed even though the same being a second objection for the same relief was not maintainable and was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioners wrongly filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of the Act which was entertained by the Settlement Officer Consolidation without verifying whether the objection was under Section 9A(2) or 20(2) of the Act. Without filing an objection under Section 20(2) of the Act, the petitioners could not have filed any appeal under Section 21(2) of the Act. The appeal filed by them was normally not maintainable and was rightly dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation though for different reasons. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also appears to have been misled on this score and entertained the revision treating the proceedings to be one under Section 20 of the Act. The revision was also dismissed though again for different reason. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also appears to have been misled on this score and entertained the revision treating the proceedings to be one under Section 20 of the Act. The revision was also dismissed though again for different reason. Since the appeal and revision both were not maintainable and liable to be dismissed, the fact that they have been dismissed for different reasons would not make any difference as in either case, net result remains the same. In view of the above discussions, the petitioners being guilty of concealing material fact and making false averments are not entitled to any relief. 8. The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed. 9. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. ———