JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Prem Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sachan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5 Gaon Sabha. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Village-Zewar, Pargana and Tehsil-Zewar, District-Gautambudh Nagar was notified under Consolidation operation by way of notification under Section-4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act published in the year 1973. After finalization of provisional consolidation scheme old Plot No.47/1 area 0.1260 hectare new No.42 area 0.1260 hectare was recorded as Manure Pit, plot No.47/1 area 0.818 hectare new number 43 area 0.818 hectare was recorded as Harizan Abadi and Chak No.975 new No. 46 area 1.2920 was recorded as Bhumidhari of respondent Nos.6 to 10 (Prem Chand and others) village was denotified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act on 23.05.1992. One Lakhan Lal Sharma filed a complaint on 23.04.2010 in respect of Plot No.42 (old No.47/3) against which respondent No.6 filed an objection before Consolidation Officer on 05.08.2011, Consolidation Officer treated the objection under Section 42A of U.P.C.H. Act vide order dated 02.02.2013 and accepted the amendment chart and map submitted by A.C.O. by which amendment was made in respect to plot No.42 (manure pit), plot No. 43 (Harijan Abadi) and plot No. 44/ 46 (Chak No.975). Against the order dated 02.02.2013 petitioner filed an amendment application on 13.01.2017 respondent Nos. 6 to 10 filed an application dated 25.05.2018 for demarcation of pond according to map and revenue record. 3. Respondent Nos. 6 to 10 filed a civil Misc. Writ-C No.35378 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.10.2018 to decide the representation of the petitioner within two months accordingly District Magistrate vide order dated 31.01.2020 directed the Tehsildar to demarcate plot No.46 in compliance of the order dated 02.02.2003 passed by Consolidation Officer. Petitioner filed a recall/restoration application dated 07.03.2020 before District Magistrate/Collector for setting aside the order dated 31.01.2020. Petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ-B No.1598 of 2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2021 directing the District Magistrate to decide the application dated 07.03.2020 if still pending and if there is no legal impediment in deciding the same within period of six months. District Magistrate vide order dated 30.12.2021 disposed of the matter considering the recall application dated 07.03.2020 filed by petitioner. Writ-B No.1598 of 2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2021 directing the District Magistrate to decide the application dated 07.03.2020 if still pending and if there is no legal impediment in deciding the same within period of six months. District Magistrate vide order dated 30.12.2021 disposed of the matter considering the recall application dated 07.03.2020 filed by petitioner. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for following relief: "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order 30.12.2021 passed by District Magistrate, District-Gautam Budh Nagar i.e. respondent No.2 in representation No.30/2018 (Sri Prem Chandra Sharma Vs. State of U.P and others). (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing District Magistrate, District- Gautam Budh Nagar/Collector i.e. respondent No.2 to decide the Recall/Restoration Application dated 07.03.2020 against the order dated 321.01.2020 within a stipulated period as directed by this Hon'ble Court. (c) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) to award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner." 4. This Court directed the Standing Counsel to obtain instruction in the matter vide orders dated 18.07.2022 and 04.08.2022. (c) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) to award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner." 4. This Court directed the Standing Counsel to obtain instruction in the matter vide orders dated 18.07.2022 and 04.08.2022. Learned Standing Counsel placed the instruction dated 16.08.2022 before the Court on 17.08.2022 which is taken on record, the parawise instruction of the State is as follows: 1- xzke tsoj ckaxj fLFkr [kljk la[;k 42 [kkn ds xढ~ढs ds :i es vafdr lkoZtfud mi;ksx dh Hkwfe gS] [kljk la[;k 43 Js.kh 5 ds vUrxZr vafdr uohu ijrh dh Hkwfe gSA [kljk la[;k 46 jdobZ 1-2920 gs0 laØe.kh; Hkwfe ds :i es izsepUnz vkfn ds uke vafdr gS A ¼[krkSuh layXu gS½ 2- U;k;ky; pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 02-02-2013 ds vUrxZr [kljk la[;k 46 e dks rkykc ds :i es izfn"V fd;k x;kA U;k;ky; pdcUnh vf/kdkjh xkSrecq}uxj }kjk okn la[;k 41@67@29&5&15 fu;e 109 , ¼2½ esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 15-09-2015 ds vUrxZr [kljk la[;k 46 e jdobZ 0-2000 gs0 rkykc ds :i es jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa vafdr fd;k x;k gSA 3- izsepUn 'kekZ iq+= Lo0 lksguyky 'kekZ fuoklh lkckSrk tkQjkckn }kjk izR;kosnu fnukad 04-12-2018 izLrqr dj ekax dh xbZ fd rkykc [kljk la[;k 46 e dk LFky ij fpUgkadu muds pd [kljk la[;k 46 esa dj fn;k x;k gSA mDr rkykc dk fpUgkadu pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 02-02-2013 ds vuq:i [kljk la[;k 42 rFkk 43 ds chp dk;e djk;k tk;sA 4- mDr izR;kosnu la[;k 30@2018 fnukad 04-12-2018 dk fuLrkj.k ftykf/kdkjh xkSrecq)uxj ds foLr`r vkns'k fnukad 31-01-2020 ds }kjk fd;k x;k gS tks fjV ;kkfpdk ds layXud 16 ds :i esa layXu gSA 5- fuLrkj.k vkns'k fnukad 31-01-2020 ds fo:) ;kph 'kkfUr Lo:i iq= eksrh jke }kjk fjdkWy izkFkZuk i= fnukad 07-03-2020 izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk tks mldh vuqifLFkfr esa vkns'k fnukad 22-09-2020 }kjk [kkfjt dj fn;k x;kA 6- ;kph }kjk iqu% fnukad 05-10-2020 dks ftykf/kdkjh xkSrecq)uxj ds le{k izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k fd fjdkWy izkFkZuk i= fnukad 07-03-2020 mldh vuqifLFkfr esa [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA vr% mls lquk tkuk fugk;r vko';d gSA izkFkZuk i= esa ;g Hkh vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd vkns'k fnukad 22-09-2020 o 31-01-2020 dks fujLr dj okn ewy uEcj ij LFkkfir fd;k tk;sA 7- leLr lacfU/kr i{kks dks lquus ds ckn ;kph 'kkfUr Lo:i iq= eksrhjke ds izkFkZuk i= fnukasd 05-10-2020 rFkk 07-03-2020 dk fuLrkj.k ftykf/kdkjh xkSrecq)uxj }kjk vkns'k fnukad 30-12-2021 ds }kjk djrs gq, rglhynkj tsoj dks iqu% vknsf'kr fd;k x;k fd rRdkyhu ftykf/kdkjh xkSrecq)uxj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnuakd 31-01-2020 dk fu;ekuqlkj vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djsaA ftykf/kdkjh xkSrecq)uxj dk vkns'k fnukad 30-12-2021 ;kfpdk ds lyaXud la[;k 01 ds :i esa layXu gSA 8- ;kph 'kkfUr Lo:i 'kekZ }kjk izLrqr fjdkWy izkFkZuk i= fnukad 07-03-2020 dk fuLrkj.k ftykf/kdkjh xkSrecq)uxj ds vkns'k fnukad 30-12-2021 ds }kjk fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% ;kfpdk esa okafNr vuqrks"k iznku fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 31.01.2020 passed by respondent No.2 on the basis of order dated 02.02.2013 directing the Tehsildar to redemarcate the plot Nos.46 (pond) 42 (Manure Pit) and 43 (Harijan Abadi) is wholly illegal and against the law. He further submitted that petitioner filed a recall application dated 07.03.2020 against the order dated 31.01.2020 and this Court vide order dated 27.07.2021 directed the District Magistrate to decide the application dated 07.03.2020 if still pending but District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 30.12.2021 without deciding the petitioner's recall application dated 07.03.2020 as such impugned order dated 30.12.2021 is wholly illegal and liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 8 submitted that impugned order dated 30.12.2021 has been passed on the petitioner's recall application dated 07.03.2020. He further submitted that the petitioner has no legal right to file application in respect of disputed plots in any manner rather he is in illegal occupation of some portion disputed pond that is why he is illegally intervening the proceeding as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the basis of the proceeding is order dated 02.02.2013 passed by Consolidation Officer against which there is no interim order of any Court as such petitioner cannot withheld the demarcation of disputed plots which are pond, manure pit, harijan abadi and adjacent plot is bhumidhari of respondent Nos. 6 to 10, all these facts were fully considered by respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order dated 30.12.2021 as such no interference is required against the impugned order at the instance of the petitioner who has no legal right to intervene the proceeding in respect to disputed plots. He finally submitted that petitioner has concealed the material fact that he has filed a revision on 02.07.2021 with delay under Section-48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order dated 02.02.2013 and pursuing the remedy before the Consolidation Court. Copy of the grounds of revision has been placed before the court for perusal as such Counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 submitted that writ petition filed by petitioner be dismissed with heavy cost for misusing the process of law. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the basis of instruction submitted that application of the petitioner dated 07.03.2020 was dismissed in default on 22.09.2020. 6 to 8 submitted that writ petition filed by petitioner be dismissed with heavy cost for misusing the process of law. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the basis of instruction submitted that application of the petitioner dated 07.03.2020 was dismissed in default on 22.09.2020. Petitioner again submitted an application dated 05.10.2020 to give him opportunity of hearing. He further submitted that respondent No.2 after considering the petitioner's application dated 07.03.2020 and 05.10.2020 passed the order dated 30.12.2021 to ensure compliance of earlier order dated 31.01.2020 as such petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha has also submitted that petitioner has no legal right in respect of disputed plots which are pond, manure pit and Harijan Abadi as such writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties and perused the record also. 10. There is no dispute about the fact that plot Nos. 42, 43, 44 are manure pit, Harijan Abadi and pond and petitioner has no concern with the same. Respondent Nos.6 to 10 is recorded owner of 1.2920 hectare area of plot No.46. 11. Since petitioner has no legal right in respect of disputed plots as such he can intervene the proceeding which are going on, on the basis of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 02.02.2013 which has not been stayed, recalled or set aside by any Court. So far as the petitioner's application dated 07.03.2020 is concerned that was already dismissed for non-prosecution and the subsequent application dated 05.10.2020 filed by petitioner is concerned that has been considered and decided vide order dated 30.12.2021. Petitioner has concealed the fact of filing revision also under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order dated 02.02.2013 passed by Consolidation Officer as well as the fact that his recall application dated 07.03.2020 was dismissed for prosecution and he has filed another application dated 05.10.2020 to give him further opportunity. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that petitioner has no legal right to intervene the proceeding in respect to disputed plots, no interference is required against the impugned order, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that petitioner has no legal right to intervene the proceeding in respect to disputed plots, no interference is required against the impugned order, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.