JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Shri P.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri B.L.Verma and Standing Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed for mandamus directing the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Purani Ekai, Jaunpur to provide possession to the petitioners over Plot No.1062 etc. 1st Chak area 2.56 decimal situated in Village Shahpur, Pargana Khaparaha Tehsil Sadar District Jaunpur. 2. It has been stated in the writ petition that original holding of the petitioners was Plot No. 797, 809, 882, 1062 total area 0.563 acre , in lieu of it, the petitioner was allotted two chaks, 1st Chak was allotted on Plot No.1062 etc.of the area 1.024 Hectacre and second chak was allotted on Plot No.1.014 etc. of the area 0.351 Hectare. The Chak of the petitioner was slightly modified by Consolidation Officer by the order dated 1.12.2014 and small area from 2nd Chak has been disturbed but the Chak remains at the same place. Although the provisional consolidation scheme has been confirmed but the possession over the Chak allotted to the petitioners has not been delivered. The petitioners have also made a representation in this respect before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on which a report has been called from the Sub Ordinate Authority. By the order dated 28.11.2014, the Sub Ordinate Authority has submitted his report that on the spot crop of wheat was standing as such after harvesting the crop, the demarcation and possession could be made to the petitioner. Although the demarcation of the Chak has been made on the spot. 3. Thereafter the petitioners moved a representation before the Collector on which the Collector by the order dated 30.8.2010 directed the Local Police Station to make spot inspection on the spot and do the needful. 4. Thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer by the order dated 26.3.2012 also directed the Local Police Station for delivering possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. Inspite of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner could not obtain possession over the land in dispute. 5. On the other hand a counter has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in which it has been stated that Satya Narayana Tewari who was member of the Management Committee executed a sale deed dated 16.1.1974 of the land in dispute. The sale deed was signed by Bhagwatideen Tiwari, the then Manager as witness. 5. On the other hand a counter has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in which it has been stated that Satya Narayana Tewari who was member of the Management Committee executed a sale deed dated 16.1.1974 of the land in dispute. The sale deed was signed by Bhagwatideen Tiwari, the then Manager as witness. Through this sale deed entire land in dispute has been transferred to the respondent no. 2 and possession has been given to him. On the basis of the sale deed their names were also recorded in the revenue records by the order of Naib Tehsildar dated 29.6.1976. Thereafter the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction i.e Original Suit No.535 of 1986 restraining Ram Deo and others from taking possession over the land in dispute. 6. The suit was dismissed on the finding that the sale deed was signed by then Manager Bhagwatideen Tiwari as a witness. As such, inference has been drawn that Bhagwatideen Tewari had knowledge about the sale deed as well as delivery of possession on 16.1.1974. The suit for injunction was not filed with 12 years as the plaintiffs were not in possession nor they are entitled to return possession, therefore, suit for injunction was dismissed by the judgment dated 26.8.1998. The petitioners filed an appeal registered as Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1998 from the aforesaid decree which was ultimately abated by the order dated 16.5.2006 under section 5(2) of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953. 7. In the meantime, the contesting respondents also filed a suit under section 229-B for declaring them as owner of the land in dispute which was also abated by Sub Divisional Officer by the order dated 5.12.2010 under section 5(2) of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act. Now the dispute relating to title between the parties is pending before the Consolidation Officer under section 9-A of the Act. Concealing all these material facts, the writ petition has been filed. Now the dispute relating to title between the parties is pending before the Consolidation Officer under section 9-A of the Act. Concealing all these material facts, the writ petition has been filed. Although the judgment of the civil judge has become nonest due to the order of the appellate court dated 16.5.2006 but the fact remains that execution of sale deed on 16.1.1974 and the delivery of possession in pursuance of it was well within the knowledge of the management of the College and since 16.1.1974 the petitioner could not get possession over the land in dispute, now although the chak has been carved out during pendency of the title dispute before the Consolidation Officer in the name of the petitioners but entitlement for obtaining possession cannot be decided only on the basis of the Chak being carved out in the name of the petitioners. In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioners must have a legal right on the date of filing of the writ petition. At present, there appears no legal right of the petitioners as they had already been dispossessed in the year 1974. 8. Thus the writ petition is not maintainable. This writ petition has been filed concealing the material facts. 9. In such circumstances, no mandamus can be issued. The writ petition is dismissed.