JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Dayal Tiwari for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, that the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Guru Prasad and Ram Avtar had not jointly filed any objection nor had the Appeal been filed by Ram Avtar. It is, therefore, urged that Ram Avtar has not contested the matter, and as against him namely the respondent No. 4 herein, no claim survived for consideration by the authorities. 3. Sri Udayan Nandan secondly contends that apart from this, the objection, which was filed by Ram Avtar and Guru Prasad, came to be rejected on 24.10.2005 and a recall application was also rejected on 16.5.2006. In between Guru Prasad transferred his entire land in favour of respondent No. 3, who is the daughter of Guru Prasad, through a registered sale-deed on 15.5.2006. The Appeal was filed 5 days thereafter on 20.5.2006. The ground urged by Sri Nandan is that once Guru Prasad has transferred the entire holding in favour of respondent No. 3, his daughter, the appeal could not have been filed by Guru Prasad. It was therefore erroneously entertained and allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 27.9.2006. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 6.8.2007 and, therefore, this writ petition. 4. Advancing his submissions, Sri Udayan Nandan further urges that the shares of Guru Prasad, Ram Avtar and the petitioner were declared under an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.9.1999 which is on the strength of a compromise. He, therefore, submits that the said compromise, copy whereof is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, forms part of the order that led to the allotment of Plot No. 608 entirely in the share of the petitioner and the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents were allotted their shares over Plot No. 575. He, therefore, submits that the Settlement Officer Consolidation committed a manifest error by allowing the Appeal and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also erroneously rejected the revision. 5. Sri Tiwari, on the other hand, contends that the land of Plot No. 608 is admittedly a roadside land and is besides the “Khadanja” (brick-sold) road of the village in question which fact is undisputed. 5. Sri Tiwari, on the other hand, contends that the land of Plot No. 608 is admittedly a roadside land and is besides the “Khadanja” (brick-sold) road of the village in question which fact is undisputed. He submits that not only Guru Prasad but also Ram Avtar, the father of respondent No. 4, whom he also represents, had jointly filed the objection and had also jointly filed the appeal. A copy of the objection filed by Guru Prasad and Ram Avtar has been brought on record as Annexure-CA-1 and the memo of Appeal has been brought on record as Annexure-CA-3. 6. In reply to the said averment, a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed where it has been again reiterated that neither the objection was filed by Ram Avtar nor the Appeal on which reliance has been placed. Sri Tiwari submits that such a ground was not urged before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and even otherwise, the memo of revision nowhere indicates that such a ground was raised and was not decided by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He, therefore, contends that this plea is not available to the petitioner. 7. So far as the transfer in favour of Respondent No. 3 is concerned, Sri Tiwari submits that this continuity of the holding has been maintained by a transfer by the father to her daughter in order to avoid any future litigation and as a matter of fact, the daughter has stepped into the shoes of the father. The allotment, therefore, was being contested by Guru Prasad and it is the same claim which came to be contested up to the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner was trying to usurp the entire roadside land in his share thereby depriving both other co-shares. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and as per the facts brought on record, it is undisputed that Keshav Ram, Guru Prasad and Ram Avtar are 1/3rd share-holder of the holding in question, which comprises of Plot Nos. 565 and 608. Plot No. 608 is also undisputedly besides the road. The contention of respondent No. 4 that Guru Prasad and Ram Avtar had jointly objected is clearly borne out from the records. The petitioner never took an objection before the Settlement Officer Consolidation to that effect. 565 and 608. Plot No. 608 is also undisputedly besides the road. The contention of respondent No. 4 that Guru Prasad and Ram Avtar had jointly objected is clearly borne out from the records. The petitioner never took an objection before the Settlement Officer Consolidation to that effect. There is no such finding recorded in the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation and even otherwise the ground of revision only states that the Appeal had not been filed by Ram Avtar. The grounds, nowhere indicate that such a plea was raised before the Settlement Officer Consolidation or that no finding has been recorded. In the absence of any such plea having been raised before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, this plea was not open to challenge at the stage of revision or even before this Court on a mere bald allegation. 9. Apart from this, the allotment of land during consolidation operations is carried out to adjust equities. Plot No. 608, being a roadside land, therefore, ought to have been distributed equally amongst all 3 share-holders including the petitioner, Guru Prasad and Ram Avtar. The contention of the petitioner that a compromise had been entered into with regard to shares where after this land had fallen into the share of the petitioner is not reflected in the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.9.1999. The Consolidation Officer has assumed this compromise for which there is no basis and, therefore, the Settlement Officer Consolidation did not commit any error in upturning the said order. 10. So far as the issue relating to maintainability of the appeal is concerned, needless to say as pointed out above, the respondent No. 3 is un-disputedly the daughter of Guru Prasad in whose favour the sale-deed was executed. This being a pure transfer of land from the father to the daughter, she did not loose her right to stake her share on the roadside land of her father. There is absolutely no case made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, is hereby discharged. ———————