JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent no.1. Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.6. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have come up to this Court raising a grievance that they are tenure holders of plot no.4388 area 0.704 and the respondents are tenure holder of plot no.4387 area 0.690 which are adjacent plots as the chaks have been allotted on the same. There is no chak road on that and, therefore, certain portion of the land be carved out from plot no.4387 and adjusted with certain land from plot no. 4388 of the petitioners, a chak road be provided. The said claim has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation upon a reference under 48(3) of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. The ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioners is that the consolidation proceedings have been completed and the possession has been given to the chak holders in whose favour chak has been allotted and Section 52 Notification has also been issued long time back and as such, at this belated stage such a grievance of the petitioners is not sustainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even after issuance of Section 52 Notification the claim of the petitioners cannot be said to be totally barred in view of Section 52-A and, therefore, for considering the individual difficulty the petitioners' claim can be considered. 5. For the aforesaid purpose, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Chandrika Rai Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and others reported in 1995 RD page 53. 6. I have gone through the aforesaid judgment. The said judgment does not appear to be applicable in the case of the petitioners as in that case Section 52 Notification had not been issued. It is to be noted that at no stage the petitioners ever made any objection under Section 9 or 21 of the Act or at the time of handing over the possession of the plot in question. Once the consolidation proceedings have been concluded and respective chaks have been allotted and chak holders have been put in possession, such a claim is being made which has rightly been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 7. Once the consolidation proceedings have been concluded and respective chaks have been allotted and chak holders have been put in possession, such a claim is being made which has rightly been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 7. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.