JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition arises out of an application under section 52-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by the petitioner on 25.10.2017. The said application has been dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2019, which is impugned in this writ petition. 3. The application was filed by the petitioners, seeking carvation of a chak road for approaching their plot No. 206 area 0.8740 hectare. In the writ petition, it is alleged that on the application being filed, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, called for a report from the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, in turn called for a spot inspection report from the Consolidation Officer who in turn forwarded it to the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The application is thereafter stated to have been forwarded to the Consolidator under Rule 109. 4. Ultimately a report dated 8.1.2018 was furnished. It is alleged that the case of the petitioner was duly supported by this report. It is also alleged in paragraph 19 of the writ petition that petitioners' application was treated as a reference under section 48(3) of the U.P.. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 5. On the petition being filed learned Sanding Counsel, as also Counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha were required to file their counter-affidavits explaining as to why the road was being denied to the petitioners. Subsequently, vide order dated 30.7.2020, 3 weeks and no more time was granted to the respondents to comply with the order dated 18.6.2020. Again on 24.8.2020,. 4 weeks further 'time was granted to the respondents to comply with the order dated 8.6.2020; it was also provided that in case a counter-affidavit Was not filed, the Deputy Director of Consolidation would remain present before the Court along with the original records. 6. Neither has any counter-affidavit been filed nor has the Deputy Director of Consolidation appeared before this Court as was directed. 7. However looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not consider it expedient to insist upon compliance of the orders noticed above. Counsel for parties have been heard and the matter is being decided finally. 8. The petitioners want a chak road to be carved out as it is alleged that they there is no road to access their plot. Counsel for parties have been heard and the matter is being decided finally. 8. The petitioners want a chak road to be carved out as it is alleged that they there is no road to access their plot. No. 206 having an area of 0.8740 ha, situated in village circa Perambur Murphy, Tehsil Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. 9. The grounds taken in the writ petition and the averments contained therein reveal that the petitioners are trying to contend that their application was in fact treated as a revision under section 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is also sought to be conveyed that the application was treated to be one under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. Both the above noted contentions are without merit. It is clear from the record that the application filed by the petitioners was one under section 52-A of the Act. This provision permits carvation of a chak road in case an 'application is made for that purpose by the tenure holders and in case the conditions specified in the said section are fulfilled. The application under section 52-A is to be made within 6 weeks of the close of consolidation operations by means of a notification under section 52 of the Act. What is extremely relevant, in the case at hand, is that the application under section 52-A of the Act was filed by the petitioners, 45 years after the close of consolidation operations. This fact by itself shows that the application was hopelessly barred by time and was clearly mala fide. The attempt by the petitioners was to get a chak road carved out, although they had managed to cultivate their land for almost half a century after close of consolidation operation, without any problem. 10. Moreover, as recorded in the impugned order itself, the conditions were under chak road could be provided to a tenure holder or holders; which conditions are prescribed under section 52-A of the Act itself, were not fulfilled. 11. Under the circumstances the impugned order is perfectly justified and calls for no interference. It is for the same reason that the personal presence of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Moradabad as also the requirement of filing of counter-affidavits has been dispensed with. 12. 11. Under the circumstances the impugned order is perfectly justified and calls for no interference. It is for the same reason that the personal presence of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Moradabad as also the requirement of filing of counter-affidavits has been dispensed with. 12. Merely because a provision of law exists, it does not mean that the same can be invoked at any time on the whims and fancies of a tenure holder. The Act provides that an application under section 52-A is to be made on behalf of one third of the tenure holders residing in a Unit and within a period of 6 months from the close of consolidation operations. It is clearly mentioned in the report of the subordinate consolidation authorities that the application was filed by the petitioners, 45 years after the close of consolidation operations. There is not a single word in this regard to be found in the writ petition. This necessarily means that the petitioners admit that their application/which has culminated in the impugned order, was filed 45 years after the close of consolidation operations, Such an application could and should not have been entertained. However, since the impugned order rejects this application, the impugned order is found to be perfectly justified and calls for no interference. The writ petition is entirely devoid of merit. 13. It is accordingly dismissed.