JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri P.R. Maurya for the petitioner and Sri Narendra Kumar for the caveator. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 20.7.2016 granting permission of construction over chak no.629 in an area of 0.030 hectare and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.7.2016 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. 3. Admittedly, chak no.629 was allotted to Satyaev and Hausila. Satyadev and Hausila executed a sale deed dated 10.4.1996 in favour of the petitioner of a part of holding ie. out of total area 1.474 hectare, an area of 0.560 hectare was sold to the petitioner. Subsequently, Hausila filed an application under Section 5 (1)(c) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before Settlement Officer, Consolidation for grant of permission over his remaining area of chak no.629 for raising construction. The application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has filed an application for partition of his share under Section 9-C of the Act. The matter is pending in appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and so long as share of the parties is specified on the spot, no permission for construction can be granted. In connection with application a report was called for from Consolidation Officer, who submitted his spot inspection report dated 4.4.2016 showing that land sold by Satyadev and Hausila to the petitioner is in eastern side and the petitioner is in possession over it. The tenure holders Satyadev and Hausila were in possession on the other side. The petitioner has filed an application before Sub Divisional Officer for conducting a separate enquiry in this respect on which a separate enquiry was conducted in which Revenue Inspector has also submitted his report dated 7.4.2016. After hearing the parties Settlement Officer, Consolidation by the impugned order dated 27.2.2016 held that from reports of Consolidation Officer as well as Revenue Inspector it is proved that the land sold to the petitioner is separate on the spot while Hausila and Satyadev were in separate possession on the spot. However, under the Circular of Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. at Lucknow Settlement Officer, Consolidation only granted permission to raise construction over an area of 300 sq.mtr. i.e. 0.030 hectare. However, under the Circular of Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. at Lucknow Settlement Officer, Consolidation only granted permission to raise construction over an area of 300 sq.mtr. i.e. 0.030 hectare. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 26.7.2016 dismissed the revision. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 5. A perusal of the details as mentioned in the sale deed of the petitioner shows that the petitioner was sold land from eastern side of plot no.629. Thus by raising construction over an area of 300 sq.mtr, entire frontage of the road will not be covered. In any case, it has been found that on the basis of reports of Consolidation Officer and Revenue Inspector that both the parties are in their separate possession. This is not the plea that respondent-3 is raising construction over the land in possession of the petitioner. However, partition appeal is pending before Settlement Officer, Consolidation. It is expected from the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that he will decide the partition appeal expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.