JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh for the petitioner. Sri Mohd. Aadil Siddiqui, Sri Sunil Kumar Maurya and Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava have appeared on behalf of the respondents. This petition has been filed against the orders of CO dated 19.8.1983, SOC dated 29.4.2010 and DDC dated 6.5.2016, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In basic consolidation record, name of Baij Nath (son of Raghu Nandan) was recorded along with the other recorded tenure holders. The petitioner as well as other recorded tenure holders filed an objection for deleting the name of Baij Nath from the khatas in dispute. The claim of petitioner as well as other tenure holders were not accepted by CO and CO by his judgment dated 19.8.1983 found that Baij Nath was the son of Raghu Nandan and his name was rightly recorded over the land in dispute. After the death of Baij Nath, his share has been inherited by his daughter Ramwanti, accordingly, the objection of the petitioner as well as other co-tenure holders were rejected and the name of Ramwanti was directed to be recorded in place of Baij Nath. The petitioner as well as other co-tenure holders filed their separate appeals, which were consolidated and decided by SOC, who by judgment dated 29.4.2010 upheld the finding of CO and dismissed the appeals of petitioner and Sita Ram and allowed the appeal of Baij Nath and Ram Chandar. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order. The revision was dismissed by DDC by the order dated 6.5.2016. All the consolidation authorities found that name of Baij Nath was recorded prior to previous consolidation operation and the entry was maintained in previous consolidation operation, therefore, the petitioner could not be allowed to challenge the entry of the name of Baij Nath. Counsel for the petitioner however submitted that in the proceeding under Land Acquisition Act, the pedigree set up by the petitioner has been accepted by the Land Acquisition Tribunal and that has been upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No. 19977 of 1997. Thus, the consolidation authorities have illegally ignored the pedigree set up by the petitioner. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner in this respect. Thus, the consolidation authorities have illegally ignored the pedigree set up by the petitioner. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner in this respect. So far as Writ Petition No. 19977 of 1997 is concerned, that writ petition may be in respect of certain plots, however, so far as the land in dispute in the present writ petition is concerned, in these khatas, name of Baij Nath was throughout recorded and remained unchallenged in previous consolidation operation, therefore, the claim of the petitioner at this moment is barred u/s 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The impugned judgments do not suffer from any illegality. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.