JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no. 8. 2. The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9- A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and seeks quashing of the order dated 10.06.2015 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 3. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to khata nos. 335, 337, 274, 33, 343, 341, 272, 273, 339, 340, 336, 276A, 276B, 342, 358, 305 and 271 regarding its partition and claims for co-tenancy and for determination of the share of the parties in khata nos. 268, 269, 322, 324, 325, 326, 327, 32 and 330. 4. The matter was decided by the Consolidation Officer by an order passed on 23.04.1984. Against this order appeals were preferred. The appeals were allowed and the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision to the Consolidation Officer. 5. After remand, the Consolidation Officer again decided the share of the parties vide order dated 24.10.2007. 6. The petitioners preferred an appeal. This appeal was decided along with another appeal, filed by Dev Singh and others. 7. The Settlement Officer Consolidation upon a finding that as many as 34 persons had died prior to the order of the Consolidation Officer, set aside the order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. 8. Against this order of remand, two revisions were filed. These revisions have been allowed. The order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation has been set aside and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has been affirmed. Hence, this writ petition. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land in question pertained to two separate khatas, which were recorded in the name of persons who had no connection with each other. The Consolidation Officer has wrongly given share in the khata of Badlu to persons belonging to the family of Badri, who was recorded in this other khata. 10. The second submission made is that during the pendency of the litigation, some parties have executed sale deeds in favour of different persons. These sale deeds have not been taken into consideration while determining the share of the parties. 11. 10. The second submission made is that during the pendency of the litigation, some parties have executed sale deeds in favour of different persons. These sale deeds have not been taken into consideration while determining the share of the parties. 11. The third and last submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that an objection had been filed by Nandram, claiming to be the daughter's son of Bhole. Bhole was not recorded over the land in question and that Nandram who is not the daughter's son of Bhole has wrongly been given a share in the land in dispute. He therefore, submits that the matter had been rightly remanded for consideration of these aspects but the order of remand has illegally been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without adverting to these aspects of the matter. 12. Sri Brajesh Shukla on behalf of caveators, has submitted that the categorical findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, have not been challenged in the writ petition. He further submits that the counsel for the petitioners has neither made any submission as to how the determination of shares by the Consolidation Officer was wrong. No averment in this regard is to be found in the writ petition also. He therefore, submits that the writ petition has been filed only with a view to stall the final adjudication of a dispute which is remained pending for almost 47 years. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 14. Perusal of the appellate order reveals that the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal on the finding that as many as 34 persons who were parties in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, had died prior to the decision. He therefore, finding that the order had been passed against dead persons, set aside the same and remanded the matter. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that in case the order had been passed against dead persons, it is the heirs of the deceased who had reason to be aggrieved. It was not open for the petitioners to challenge the order of the Consolidation Officer on the ground that some persons were dead. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that in case the order had been passed against dead persons, it is the heirs of the deceased who had reason to be aggrieved. It was not open for the petitioners to challenge the order of the Consolidation Officer on the ground that some persons were dead. The implication being that the petitioners who were the appellants could have challenged the order of the Consolidation Officer only in case the order passed was contrary to their claims. In the absence of any illegality as regards the determination of the shares of the petitioners, it was open for them to take shelter of technical pleas and to have the matter remanded back unnecessarily. It has also been categorically observed that the heirs of the parties who may have died during the pendency of the litigation never challenged the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. 15. In so far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that sale deeds executed during the pendency of the litigation have not been taken into consideration while determining the shares of the parties, in my considered opinion, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has discarded this argument on the correct reasoning that the share of the vendors were required to be determined and the subsequent purchasers during the pendency of the litigation would get title only to the extent, the claim of their vendors, was upheld. 16. I do not find any illegality in this reason given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 17. As regards the last submission that Nandram claimed to be the daughter's son of Bhole whose name was not recorded in the revenue records and that the share has been granted without their being any evidence on record in this regard, is also without substance. The Consolidation Officer in his order has referred to the oral testimony adduced on behalf of Nandram in support of his case that he was the daughter's son of Bhole. 18. The contention that he has been granted share without any evidence is therefore not correct. The Consolidation Officer has further recorded a finding that the land in question has been recorded in the name of the family right from 1272 Fasli and he has accepted the pedigree given and has determined the share on the basis of such pedigree which had been accepted by him. The Consolidation Officer has further recorded a finding that the land in question has been recorded in the name of the family right from 1272 Fasli and he has accepted the pedigree given and has determined the share on the basis of such pedigree which had been accepted by him. Even for this court the order of the Consolidation Officer cannot be faulted with and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has therefore rightly upheld the same. 19. There is force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have not made any submission as regards the shares, as determined by the Consolidation Officer. In case the petitioners were aggrieved, it was incumbent upon them to have made some assertions as to what share they are entitled to as per their case. In the absence of any such assertion or submission during the course of arguments, it cannot be said that the petitioner's share has been wrongly determined. 20. Moreover, in the absence of any such submission or averment, the court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have no reason to be aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer which has been affirmed by the revisional Court and for the same reason, I concur with the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioners are trying to hide behind technicalities. The petitioners should have clearly spelt out their grievance. By raising a plea that the order of the Consolidation Officer was passed against dead persons, they are trying to canvass the claims, of persons who may have been dead when the order was passed, but whose heirs have never come forward to challenge the order or to point out any illegality therein. 21. Accordingly and in view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 22. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.