JUDGMENT : Rajan Roy, J. 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Finance & Revenue/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti, under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1953'). 3. Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that an order was passed in proceedings under section 9-A(2) of the Act 1953 on 28.5.1996 in Case No. 3161 by the Consolidation Officer. Based thereon objections were filed under section 20 of the Act 1953 in 1996 itself, whereupon an order was passed on 21.6.1996 allotting him Chaks in terms of the order passed under section 9-A. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further says that twenty years after this, the opposite party No. 4, a villager of the same village, filed a revision directly before the D.D.C. under section 48 challenging the said order without seeking condonation of delay in filing the same and the revision was not only entertained, but the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 21.6.1996 under section 20 has been set aside, which is patently illegal. 4. This is not the first writ petition filed by the petitioner. Earlier he had filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 10528 (Cons.) of 2017 wherein on 12.5.2017 the following order was passed: "Heard Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 3, Sri Jai Kumar, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, Sri Sharvesh Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 4. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.4.2017 passed by opposite party No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Shrawasti. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that revision filed by opposite party No. 4 under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the order passed by Consolidation Officer, is not maintainable. Further learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case the claim on the basis of patta which granted in his favour by the competent authority which is naveen parti land has been given to him. Further learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case the claim on the basis of patta which granted in his favour by the competent authority which is naveen parti land has been given to him. Thus in view of the said fact first and foremost question which has to be considered in the present case is to the effect that whether the patta has been validly granted in favour of the petitioner in respect to the land by the Gaon Sabha. Learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no order for grant of patta in favour of the petitioner rather the same is nothing but outcome of the fraud. And there is also no order dated 28.5.1996 passed by Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioner in Case No. 3161 under section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Thus, in order to decide the controversy it will be appropriate to direct the petitioner to file patta-which has been granted in his favour on the basis of which he had claimed that land in question belongs to him as well as copy of the order dated 28.5.1996 passed in Case No. 3161 decided by Consolidation Officer by way affidavit within two weeks. List thereafter. In the meantime, it will be open to learned Counsel for respondents to file counter affidavit." 5. Thereafter without bringing on record the order dated 28.5.1996 passed by the Consolidation Officer, as was required by the Court, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 19.9.2019. The Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 4 submits that both the writ petitions i.e. the earlier one and the one which has been filed today, are verbatim same and the earlier petition was got withdrawn only to overcome the difficulty posed by the query made by this Court vide order dated 12.5.2017. He says that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 28.5.1996 has not been filed at any level, nor even with this writ petition. He says that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 28.5.1996 has not been filed at any level, nor even with this writ petition. He has invited attention of the Court to findings recorded by the Revisional Court that no proceedings were registered under section 9-A(2) bearing Case No. 3167 before the Consolidation Officer at the behest of the petitioner, Smt. Vibha Singh and no order was ever passed in the said proceedings, but based on a fictitious order subsequent application appears to have been filed under section 20 whereupon the order dated 21.6.1996 was passed by which Naveen Parti land under the control and management of the Gaon Sabha was usurped by the petitioner. He says that in fact no such lady by the name Vibha Devi D/o. Sant Singh was a resident of Village Madhawapur, District Shrawasti, where the consolidation operations had taken place as has been recorded by the D.D.C. The petitioner Vibha Singh claims to be Vibha Devi D/o. Sant Singh which itself is fraudulent. 6. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 4 also states that in fact an application for condonation of delay was filed alleging fraud in the matter by which Naveen Parti land belonging to Gaon Sabha had been usurped. He invited the attention of the Court to relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the D.D.C., wherein, the question of delay has been considered, though not in so many words, and revision was admitted obviously on the explanation offered by the revisionist for the delay based on the fraud alleged which was ultimately found to be true by the D.D.C., being found satisfactory. Delay was explained from the date of knowledge which was accepted by the D.D.C., although not in so many words, but by accepting the revision. 7. Striking feature in the impugned order is that it says that prior to the consolidation operations no land was recorded in the name of the alleged Vibha Devi D/o. Sant Singh. Learned Counsel on being confronted with this factual aspect could not show that there was any land recorded in her name. It being so it is inexplicable as to how she could be given any land during consolidation operations. Learned Counsel on being confronted with this factual aspect could not show that there was any land recorded in her name. It being so it is inexplicable as to how she could be given any land during consolidation operations. Further on being asked as to whether any patta was granted to her, the learned Counsel denied the same, although, in the earlier order dated 12.5.2017, this was the argument which was raised by the then Counsel. 8. The land in dispute measures about 1.5 Hectare which comes to more than 3 Acres. 9. The D.D.C. on a bare perusal of the impugned order has recorded a finding that no proceeding was ever registered under section 9-A(2) resulting in any order dated 28.5.1996 by the Consolidation Officer, therefore, based on a non-existent and fictitious order subsequent proceedings under section 20 took place to usurp Naveen Parti land belonging to the Gaon Sabha and it was the duty of every officer to correct such wrong as also misappropriation of the Gaon Sabha land. The D.D.C. has accordingly cancelled the order dated 21-6-1996 passed under section 20 as it was passed on the basis of a fictitious order. 10. The petitioner has not been able to produce before the Revisional Court nor before this Court the original order dated 28.5.1996 alleged to have been passed under section 9-A(2). The fact is that no such case bearing No. 3167 was registered as has been found on verification obviously on the basis of registers maintained in this regard. In view of the above this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering the findings of fact recorded by the D.D.C. which protect Gaon Sabha land. This Court, therefore, declines to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction and dismisses the writ petition.