JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Surya Nath Yadav for the petitioner, Sri Daya Shankar Prasad Singh for respondent-2 and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav for the Gaon Sabha. This petition has been filed against the orders of ASOC dated 10.1.1978 and DDC dated 27.6.2016 passed in the proceeding u/s 9-B of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The dispute between the parties is in respect of determination of valuation of plot no. 1973 of village Pura Raghunathpur, pargana Kol Asha, district Varanasi. The total area of plot no. 1973 was 0.17 acre, out of which, an area of 0.06 acre was included in consolidation proceeding and the remaining area of 0.11 acre was left as chak out from the stage of ACO. Mrityunjay Sharma (respondent-2) filed an appeal against the order of ACO by which an area of 0.11 acre of plot no. 1973 was left as chak out for determination of its valuation. The appeal was directly allowed by ASOC by order dated 10.1.1978 and the valuation of plot no. 1973 has been determined. Since in basic consolidation year, plot no. 1973 was recorded in the name of Sabhajeet Singh, as such, after determination of valuation of the area, which was earlier chak out, enhanced valuation was allotted in the chak of Sabhajeet Singh. After determination of valuation, the land in dispute was allotted in the chak of Awadhesh Kumar Sharma and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (both sons of Mrityunjay Sharma). This order was never challenged by any one and the chak revisions of the village were decided by DDC in the year 1991. The village was also notified u/s 52of the Act. A highly time barred revision has been filed by Deenanath Singh (the petitioner) on 6.7.2015, against the order of ASOC dated 10.1.1975. The revision was heard by DDC, who by the impugned order dated 27.6.2016, dismissed the revision. Hence, this petition has been filed. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. Admittedly, plot no. 1973 was recorded in the name of Sabhajeet Singh and no objection u/s 9 was filed by any person, including, Gaon Sabha, claiming any right over the land in dispute. The dispute relating to title over plot no. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. Admittedly, plot no. 1973 was recorded in the name of Sabhajeet Singh and no objection u/s 9 was filed by any person, including, Gaon Sabha, claiming any right over the land in dispute. The dispute relating to title over plot no. 1973 has become final and even the claim of Gaon Sabha or any person has become barred u/s 11-A of the Act. So far as the construction over plot no. 1973 is concerned, "land" has been defined u/s 3(5) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as follows: - 'Land' means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry (including pisciculture and poultry farming) and includes - (i) the site, being part of a holding, of a house or other similar structure; and (ii) trees, wells and other improvements existing on the plots forming the holding. Thus, under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, construction over part of holding is included within the meaning of land. The purpose was obvious that if the part of a holding on which construction is lying, then after determination of its valuation, it could be conveniently allotted in the chak of others, so as to form a compact area. In any case, the ownership of the construction also has not been claimed by any owner. If the ownership of construction is claimed, at the most, its compensation can be given and nothing else. In the circumstances, neither the petitioner, nor the Gaon Sabha, is left with any interest over it in the year 2015, when the revision was filed. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Triloki Nath vs. Ram Gopal 1974 RD 5, in which it has been held that the land used for brick kiln, shall not be treated as land. This judgment is not applicable in the present case, as in this case, entire holding was not used for the purpose other than agricultural purpose. It is only a part of the holding that was used for the purpose, other than agricultural purpose, as such, it is included in the definition of "land" as defined under the Act. This judgment is not applicable in the present case, as in this case, entire holding was not used for the purpose other than agricultural purpose. It is only a part of the holding that was used for the purpose, other than agricultural purpose, as such, it is included in the definition of "land" as defined under the Act. So far as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in Sri Jaisi Ram vs. DDC and others 1969 RD 61, Smt. Naumi Mathews vs. Board of Revenue, 2011 (113) RD 85 are concerned, this is not a case of committing fraud, as such, the law laid down in these cases have not application in the present case. So far as the judgment of this Court in Palakdhari Vs. DDC 1992 RD 111 is concerned, it shall be deemed to have been overruled by the Division Bench of this Court in Babu Ram Verma Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Akbarpur, District Faizabad and others (1996) 3 UPLBEC 2028 . So far as the judgments relied in Munni Lal vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and others 2011 (3) JCLR 632 (All), JIV Nandan vs. Collector, Mau and others 1998 RD 790 and Maharshi Dayanand Bal Mandir vs. DDC and others 2014 (125) RD 347 are concerned, these judgment related to patta where the aggrieved person may be included the person who are entitled for allotment of patta, but in the present case, in view of Division Bench judgment, no other person can be permitted to agitate the grievance of the Gaon Sabha, except the Land Management Committee. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.