JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.: - Heard Sri S.P. Tiwari for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 8.7.2014 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners as time barred and the orders of the Consolidation officer dated 21.12.2004 and 19.5.2007 by which the objection of Bhawani Bheekh, contesting respondent has been allowed and he was held to be owner of plot no.669 area 1.11 acre of village Pure Darhu, pargana Mahadewa, district Gonda.. 3. Bhawani Bheekh filed an objection under Section 9A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") claiming that the land in dispute was allotted to him by the Land Management Committee. However, his name was not recorded in the basic consolidation record. The Consolidation Officer after hearing Gaon Sabha and recording the statements of Pradhan Lal Bihari, Member of Land Management Committee Jageshwar and Chaudhary son of Mohan as well as perusal of the original patta dated 20.7.1967 found that the land in dispute was allotted to Bhawani Bheekh by the Land Management Committee accordingly by order dated 21.12.2004 he directed for recording his name over the land in dispute. 4. It may be mentioned here that initially the objection under Section 9 B of the Act was filed in respect of determination of valuation of plot no.669 aforesaid. The matter was decided by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 9.6.1994 and appeal against aforesaid order was dismissed by the order dated 29.7.1997 and at present the dispute relating to determination of valuation of plot no.669 is pending before this Court in Writ No.259(Consolidation) of 2001 and this Court has granted the interim order directing the parties to maintain status. 5. Since the land in dispute was allotted in the chak of the petitioners in consolidation as such the petitioners filed a time barred appeal on 17.4.2007 against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 21.12.2004 along with a delay condonation application. By the impugned order the Settlement Officer, Consolidation found that the petitioner has no right to raise title dispute in respect of plot no.669. He further found that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. On this finding the appeal was dismissed as time barred. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. By the impugned order the Settlement Officer, Consolidation found that the petitioner has no right to raise title dispute in respect of plot no.669. He further found that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. On this finding the appeal was dismissed as time barred. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute relating to allotment of land in dispute and determination of its valuation, according to the provisions of Section 8 A of the Act is pending before this Court and this Court has granted interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo and the land in dispute was allotted in the chak of the petitioners, who are in possession over the land in dispute. However, by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 21.12.2014 Bhawani Bheekh was held to be the owner of the land in dispute as such in case the land in dispute is given to Bhawani Bheekh then the petitioners will not be able to get any land. He further submits that although in consolidation the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners but Bhawani Bheekh has not impleaded them as opposite party in the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer and the order was ex parte against them. As the order was ex parte the delay was liable to be condoned but the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has illegally dismissed the appeal. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. 8. Under the Act, the proceeding under section 9 A is the proceeding in which title disputes are decided. Admittedly, the petitioners did not claim any title over plot no. 669 nor still he claims any title over it. The only grievance of the petitioners is regarding determination of valuation of plot no. 669 and its allotment in his chak which is entirely a different and independent proceeding. Where the valuation has not been determined an objection under Section 9B of the Act provided and the allotment dispute is provided under Section 20 and 21 of the Act. The petitioner does not claim title over the land in dispute. 669 and its allotment in his chak which is entirely a different and independent proceeding. Where the valuation has not been determined an objection under Section 9B of the Act provided and the allotment dispute is provided under Section 20 and 21 of the Act. The petitioner does not claim title over the land in dispute. On the other hand Bhawani Bheekh claims himself to the allottee of the Land Management Committee and admittedly the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha in basic consolidation record. In such circumstance, the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper party in the proceeding under Section 9 A (2) of the Act nor any notice is required to be given to them under the Act. Similarly, the petitioners did not claim any right over the land in dispute as such they have no locus standi to challenge the order of Consolidation Officer passed in the title proceeding i.e. under Section 9 A (2) of the Act. 9. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed.