JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Vinod Shanker Tripathi for the petitioners and Sri R.D.Yadav for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.10.1992 and 14.3.2016 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. Plot nos.917 and 918 were the original holding of mother of the petitioners, Smt. Zubaida Begum in which she had 7/8 share. During consolidation, Smt. Zubaida Begum (chak no.153) was proposed two chaks- first chak was proposed on plot no.1393 etc. and second chak was proposed on plot no.1038 etc. Smt. Zubaida Begum did not file any objection under Section 20 of the Act. However, in the objection of others, the Consolidation Officer by order dated 30.11.1989 modified her second chak at the same place. Thereafter, again Smt. Zubaida Begum did not challenge the aforesaid order itself. Respondents filed an appeal. The appeal was allowed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 2.3.1990 in which chak of Smt. Zubaida Begum was modified inasmuch as 3 biswa area of her second chak was taken out and its valuation was allotted in her first chak. Thereafter, the respondents filed a revision. The revision was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 28.10.1992, in which chak of Smt. Zubaida Begum was again modified. Against the order of 28.10.1992, the petitioners filed an application for recall of the order on 27.3.2014 along with a delay condonation application. In the delay condonation application as well as in the affidavit, it has been stated that the order was passed ex parte and no notice was given to Smt. Zubaida Begum. It is only when Mohabbe Ali Khan began to take possession over the land in dispute on 25.3.2014 then they came to know about the order and then a recall application was filed. Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 14.3.2016 held that the recall application was filed with the delay of about 22 years although in the meantime final consolidation record in the shape of CH Forms 41 and 45 were prepared and distributed to the tenure holders. Thus, it is not liable to be believed that the petitioners had no knowledge of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation during this period. Thus, it is not liable to be believed that the petitioners had no knowledge of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation during this period. On this finding he dismissed the recall application by order dated 14.3.2016 as time barred. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that CH Forms 41 and 45 were prepared and distributed to the tenure holders is incorrect inasmuch as he has obtained a questionnaire on 26.5.2016 showing that CH Forms 41 and 45 of the village have not been prepared till that day. In such circumstances he submits that recall application has been wrongly rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 6. A perusal of the recall application shows that the petitioners in the recall application have stated that plot nos. 917 and 198 were original holding of Smt. Zubaida Begum but she has been allotted uran chak on other plots. Thus, material prejudice has been caused to her. So far as uran chaks are concerned, a perusal of CH form 23 of Smt. Zubaida Begum shows that she was proposed uran chaks from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer itself inasmuch as her first chak was proposed on plot no.1393 and second chak was proposed on plot no.1038 etc. Thus, Smt. Zubaida Begum did not file objection under Section 20 of the Act against the proposed chaks and on this ground it cannot be said that Smt. Zubaida Begum was aggrieved in any way by allotting uran chaks to her. A perusal of Form No.23 shows that by the impugned order some area of second chak of the petitioners was taken out and allotted in chak on plot no.1055 etc. and its valuation has been allotted in her first chak on plot no.1393 etc. Thus, it is not material prejudice to the petitioners. 7. In the circumstances, the chak allotment proceeding is not liable to be re-opened after 24 years. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.