JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 5 June 1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 1189/1979, Revision No. 1190/1979 and Revision No. 1191/1979 as well as the order dated 20 March 1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 17/1981 under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. It seems that objections filed by certain tenure holders under section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 22 February 1978. As a result of the said order, the name of the tenure holders was directed to be recorded in the revenue records by expunging the entry Talab, usar and parti. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the Gram Sabha before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), which was rejected on 13 December 1979. The Gram Sabha carried the matter in revision being Revision No. 1191/1979, which was also dismissed, whereas the revisions filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 had been allowed. The Gram Sabha thereafter, filed a restoration application which was rejected on 21 April 1989. It was followed by another restoration application filed in the year 1995 by the then Pradhan, which also came to be dismissed on 16 December 1996. By order dated 20 March 1997 passed under Rule 109-A , the Consolidation Officer directed for issuance of parwana amaldamarad for implementation of the orders passed in favour of the tenure holders during the course of consolidation operations. The petitioner has now approached this Court challenging these orders. It is stated that since the Gram Sabha did not file any writ petition, therefore, the petitioner sought permission from the District Magistrate for filing a writ petition by moving the application dated 20 October 2016 before him. However, on account of the political pressure, the application of the petitioner has not been decided and, therefore, he has directly approached this Court assailing these orders. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the order passed by the authorities directing for recording of the name of the tenure holders in the revenue records was subjected to repeated challenges by the Gram Sabha. The appeal as well as the revision filed by the Gram Sabha have been dismissed. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the order passed by the authorities directing for recording of the name of the tenure holders in the revenue records was subjected to repeated challenges by the Gram Sabha. The appeal as well as the revision filed by the Gram Sabha have been dismissed. Thereafter, restoration applications filed in the year 1989 as well as in the year 1995 were also rejected. The Consolidation Officer has already passed an order on 20 March 1997 for implementation of the previous orders. The petitioner has given absolutely no explanation in the writ petition as to why he is racking up the issue after 20 years of the passing of the order under Rule 109-A. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the impugned orders. The petitioner does not have any direct interest in the land, but has preferred the instant writ petition solely on the ground that he resides in the same village. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders at the instance of the petitioner. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner would not mean that this Court has adjudicated upon the correctness of the impugned orders and the said question is left open for being considered in an appropriate proceedings, if warranted. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the writ petition stands dismissed.