JUDGMENT : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 and 2 as well as Shri R.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no.104. 2. Notice need not be issued to the private respondent nos.4 to 103 in view of the order proposed to be passed. 3. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 23.4.2018 passed by the first respondent, Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi as well as the order dated 29.6.2015 passed by the second respondent, Collector/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Azamgarh. 4. Record in question reflects that Plot no.2044 area 3.765 hectares and Plot no.2065/1 area 4.400 hectares of Khata No.22 situated in Village Kamhariya, Pargana Belaha Bans, Tehsil Meh Nagar, District Azamgarh were recorded as Bhumidhari land of the petitioners in the Fasali Years 1356 and 1359 respectively. The said entry was continued to be recorded either in the name of petitioners' father or subsequently in their names. During consolidation proceeding, no one had raised any objection regarding ownership and possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. After lapse of more than 23 years, a complaint dated 24.3.1990 was filed by the then Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha before the Deputy Director of Consolidation stating that the plots in question were the property of the Gaon Sabha and the same were wrongly recorded in the name of the petitioners. On the application aforesaid, reports are stated to have been called for from the subordinate consolidation authorities and relying upon the same, the complaint was rejected on 8.8.1991. A recall application was filed by the then Pradhan for recall of the order dated 8.8.1991 and the same was allowed on 28.8.1991. The complaint in question was directed to be registered under section 48(3) of the UP ZA & LR Act. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.24959 of 1991, which was finally dismissed on 8.12.1997. The consequential special leave petition, which gave rise to Civil Appeal No. 1945 of 1998, was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 14.3.2000. 5. After the decision of the Apex Court, some reports are stated to have been furnished by the consolidation authorities, mentioning therein some other plot numbers also, which did not find a mention in the complaint made by the then Gram Pradhan. 5. After the decision of the Apex Court, some reports are stated to have been furnished by the consolidation authorities, mentioning therein some other plot numbers also, which did not find a mention in the complaint made by the then Gram Pradhan. On receipt of these reports, another application is stated to have been filed by the then Pradhan on 16.2.2010 regarding other plots, which did not find a mention in his earlier complaint. The petitioners allegedly filed objections to the reports as also the subsequent complaint/application filed by the then Pradhan. The petitioners also filed a detailed objection. The Deputy Director of Consolidation thereafter accepted the reference on 21.4.2011. Against the aforesaid order dated 21.4.2011, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No. 25224 of 2011. The same was allowed on 2.5.2011 and the order dated 21.4.2011 was set aside. The matter was remanded back for a fresh decision after perusing the original record and after allowing the parties opportunity to adduce evidence. In pursuance of this order of remand, the petitioners are alleged to have filed documentary evidence before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 26.8.2014 again accepted the reference. Aggrieved with the said order dated 26.8.2014, the petitioners had preferred Writ Petition No.50624 of 2014, which was dismissed on 11.11.2014. The petitioners filed SLP No.1384 of 2015 before Hon'ble Apex Court assailing the order dated 11.11.2014 and the same was also dismissed on 9.2.2015. 6. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during consolidation proceeding, the plots in dispute were remained to be recorded as Bhumidhari land of the petitioners. The lease deeds were granted in favour of the private respondents on 10.2.2015 in respect of the land in dispute but the said lease deeds were never acted upon on the spot nor the allottees were given possession of the land in question till date. The land in dispute was under consolidation operation and hence the petitioners could not know about the execution of the said leases. The village in question has now been de-notified under Section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act on 14.7.2012. The land in dispute was under consolidation operation and hence the petitioners could not know about the execution of the said leases. The village in question has now been de-notified under Section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act on 14.7.2012. When the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid lease deeds dated 10.2.2015, immediately they filed a case under Section 198 (4) of UP ZA & LR Act before the second respondent on 13.4.2015 for cancellation of the aforesaid lease deeds but without considering all these facts and grounds raised by the petitioners the second respondent has dismissed the case on 29.6.2015 on the ground of delay as well as on merit also. The said order dated 29.6.2015 was assailed by the petitioner in the revision before the first respondent but the revisional court has also dismissed the revision in question on 29.6.2015. 7. Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that the complaint in question was made against the petitioners on 24.3.1990 and the same was rejected on 8.8.1991. The recall application filed for recalling the order dated 8.8.1991 was allowed on 28.8.1991 and the complaint in question was directed to be registered under Section 48(3) of the UP ZA & LR Act. The Writ Petition No.24959 of 1991 filed by the petitioner was finally dismissed on 8.12.1997 and the consequential special leave petition, which gave rise to Civil Appeal No. 1945 of 1998, was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 14.3.2000. Thereafter, some reports were furnished by the consolidation authorities, mentioning therein some other plot numbers also, which did not find a mention in the complaint. On receipt of these reports, another application was filed by the then Pradhan on 16.2.2010 to which the petitioners filed objections. The Deputy Director of Consolidation thereafter accepted the reference on 21.4.2011. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 25224 of 2011 challenging the order dated 21.4.2011 and the same was allowed on 2.5.2011. The Deputy Director of Consolidation again accepted the reference on 26.8.2014. The Deputy Director of Consolidation thereafter accepted the reference on 21.4.2011. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 25224 of 2011 challenging the order dated 21.4.2011 and the same was allowed on 2.5.2011. The Deputy Director of Consolidation again accepted the reference on 26.8.2014. The Writ Petition No.50624 of 2014 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.8.2014 was dismissed on 11.11.2014. The petitioners filed SLP No.1384 of 2015 assailing the order dated 11.11.2014 and the same was also dismissed on 9.2.2015. Thereafter, the lease deeds were granted in favour of the private respondents on 10.2.2015 in respect of the land in dispute. 9. Once the consolidation proceeding has been finalized against the petitioner upto Apex Court, then the petitioners cannot be permitted to assail the validity of the leases accorded in favour of the private respondents under Section 198 of UP ZA & LR Act and as such, no relief can be accorded in favour of the petitioners. 10. The writ petition sans merit and the same is dismissed.