JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Shri B. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.K. Tyagi, for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 01.08.1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut in reference No. 488 under Section 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot no. 623 which was the original holding of the respondent. 4. It has been submitted by Shri B. Malik that the plot no. 623 had been allotted to the petitioners in chak allotment proceedings. They were put in possession over the same and the allotment became final in view of Section 30 of the Act. Thereafter an application was alleged of Amir Hasan on 06.12.1978 stating therein that he had lost in title proceedings and, therefore, there was surplus land in his chak and this surplus portion be excluded from the sahan portion of the chak allotted to the petitioners. It is further contended that the consolidation operations came to a close on issuance of notification under Section 52 of the Act on 01.05.1979. In view of the sub-section (a) and (b) of Section 30, the petitioners acquired a vested right in plot no. 623 and could not have been disturbed as has been done by the impugned order. He has stated that it is not clear as to how the proceedings started and the proceedings can at best be proceedings under Section 42-A of the Act. This provision is only for correction of arithmetical errors. In such proceedings, an order modifying the chaks of the parties cannot be passed. In any case, the proceedings appear to have been initiated on the application of Amir Hasan and the petitioners were not party thereto. 5. The last submission made is that the contesting respondent is a transferee and has no vested right to the land in question and for this reason also the impugned order which allots plot no. 623 to him is illegal. The impugned order is also illegal inasmuch as it does not consider the case of the petitioners that the bachat land which has been proposed to them by the impugned order, is not vacant on the spot, having being allotted to third parties by the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, the petitioners cannot get possession over the same. 6. The impugned order is also illegal inasmuch as it does not consider the case of the petitioners that the bachat land which has been proposed to them by the impugned order, is not vacant on the spot, having being allotted to third parties by the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, the petitioners cannot get possession over the same. 6. Shri S.K. Tyagi on the contrary submitted that the plot no. 623 was held to belong to Prem Chandra in title proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Prem Chandra sold this land to respondent no. 4. These proceedings were decided in August, 1975. Reference proceedings were drawn to allot plot no. 623 in the chak of the person who was held to its owner and it is this reference which has been decided by the impugned order. He has vehemently submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order impugned was passed in proceedings under Section 42-A of the Act is entirely misconceived and contrary to the record itself. He has also invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-2 of the writ petition which is an objection/affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in the reference proceedings. This objection is in the form of an affidavit of Jagbir Singh, the petitioner no. 1. Placing reliance on this document, it has been submitted that the order impugned has been passed in a reference under Section 48 (3) and that to, after hearing the petitioners. The sale-deed in favour of the respondent no. 4 was executed on 25.01.1973. He has also placed reliance on paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been alleged that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed facts and given a distorted version of the case. The land in dispute, namely, plot no. 623 was recorded in the basic year in the name of Prem Chandra. Amir Hasan son of Nawab Ali (father of the respondent no. 8) filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, claiming to be in possession and that the name of the Prem Chandra was fraudulently recorded. Initially the case was decided ex parte in favour of of the Amir Hasan holding him to the sirdar thereof. This ex parte order was subsequently set aside on 24.07.1973 and the revision filed by the Amir Hasan was dismissed on 17.10.1973. Initially the case was decided ex parte in favour of of the Amir Hasan holding him to the sirdar thereof. This ex parte order was subsequently set aside on 24.07.1973 and the revision filed by the Amir Hasan was dismissed on 17.10.1973. Since in the meantime, Prem Chandra had transferred the land in question in favour of respondents 4 to 7 through a registered sale deed, the purchasers were impleaded in the proceedings under Section 9-A (2). Subsequently the objection of Amir Hasan was dismissed holding the respondent nos. 4 to 7 to be a bhumidhars of the plot in question. 7. In the meantime, the plot in question was wrongly valued and allotted in the chaks of the other persons, in proceedings for allotment of chaks. An objection therefore was filed by Prem Chandra. 8. In this objection, it was alleged that plot no. 623 was being used for a pressure and, therefore, it was liable to be included in their chak and had wrongly been proposed in the chak of the other parties. It has, therefore, been submitted that since the objection filed by the respondents 4 to 7 under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was pending consideration, the provisional consolidation scheme could not have attained finality, as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ petition therefore, lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, and such perusal, especially of the certified copy of this impugned order, reveals that it has been passed in reference proceedings under Section 48 (3) of the Act. 10. It is, therefore, clear that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order has been passed in proceedings under Section 48-A of the Act is without any basis. Moreover, it is established from this document that the petitioner no. 1 had contested the reference proceedings and the order was passed after hearing him. 11. Since the reference had been prepared to give effect to the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order impugned was passed after confirmation of the chaks in view of the Section 30 of the Act, cannot be accepted. 11. Since the reference had been prepared to give effect to the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order impugned was passed after confirmation of the chaks in view of the Section 30 of the Act, cannot be accepted. Even if possession is given to a tenure holder over a chak proposed to him, the same is always subject to orders that may be passed in proceedings for allotment of chaks, and therefore, also the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are without substance. 12. The only other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that requires consideration, is the allegation that the land which have been allotted to them by the impugned order, in lieu of plot no. 623 on bachat land, is not vacant having been allotted to third parties. Although this allegation has been denied in the counter affidavit, the denial is a bald denial and for all practical purposes, this allegations of the petitioners stand admitted however, in my considered opinion, this cannot be a ground for interfering with the impugned order. 13. Interest of justice would stand served in case, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the competent court for allotment of equivalent land, in case they cannot be given possession over the land allotted to them, since it is in the possession of third parties. 14. In case, such an application is filed, it is expected that the same shall be considered on its merits and disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of four months of its being filed. 15. Accordingly and for the reasons given above, this writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. The petitioners will however be at liberty to approach the competent court, in case they are not given possession over the land, to which they are entitled, in pursuance of the impugned order.