JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Heard Sri Vishnu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents. 2. This proceeding is arising out of chak allotments among the parties herein during consolidation proceedings. 3. Initially, one chak on Plot No.794 and others was allotted to the petitioner no.1 Shyam Singh and it was maintained at the stage of Consolidation Officer also. 4. Petitioner no.1, Shyam Singh was satisfied with the allotment of one single chak on his respective original number however, on a limited issue of valuation of land, he filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Saharanpur. 5. One Sher Singh as well as some other chak holders have also filed rest of the appeals. 6. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation decided about 33 appeals by a consolidated order dated 15.2.1989 and by a small order disposed of all the appeals and approved an amended table of allotment of chaks. 7. Petitioners herein remained aggrieved that the order has more adversely affected them as number of chaks which were one at the stage of Consolidation Officer were increased to two and also kept their original plots bearing Nos.794, 795 and 796 out of the Consolidation, therefore, they preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur. 8. Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed four revision petitions including the revision petition filed by petitioners and prepared an amended chart. The petitioners were satisfied by the order dated 24.6.1992 passed in the revision petition. 9. One Sadhu Ram filed a restoration application that the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revision petitions was an ex-parte order. Restoration application was rejected vide order dated 18.4.1994. Subsequently, one Dhooman alias Dhoom Singh filed another restoration application that he was not heard during the revision petition and decision thereof has disturbed his holding. 10. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.4.1994 allowed the above referred restoration application and set-aside the order dated 24.6.1992 and directed that revision petitions be heard afresh on merits. 11. Aforesaid referred order was not immediately challenged by the petitioners. 12. 10. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.4.1994 allowed the above referred restoration application and set-aside the order dated 24.6.1992 and directed that revision petitions be heard afresh on merits. 11. Aforesaid referred order was not immediately challenged by the petitioners. 12. In pursuance of above referred order, Deputy Director of Consolidation, decided the revision petitions vide order dated 11.12.1998 after hearing all parties and included petitioners' holding on Gata Nos.794, 795 and 796 within consolidation proceedings and allotted Chaks to original holders in accordance with their respective shares according to their respective valuations. 13. Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 15.2.1989, passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Saharanpur and orders dated 22.1.1996 and 11.12.1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur. 14. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties decided the revision petitions including the revision petition filed by petitioners and accepted the grievance of petitioners vide order dated 24.6.1992, which does not require any interference. 15. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected the restoration application filed by one Sadhu Ram by a reasoned order dated 18.4.1994, but committed an error by allowing another restoration application filed by one Dhoom Singh vide order dated 22.1.1996 whereby not only the restoration application was allowed, but order passed on 24.6.1992 was recalled too. 16. Learned counsel has further submitted that above referred approach is contrary to settled position of Law as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Smt.Shivraji (Deceased by LR's) & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad & Ors., 1997 (8) R.D.562, whereby the referred question was answered that 'It is not open for the consolidation authorities to review/recall their final orders passed in proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in exercise of inherent powers". 17. Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that at the stage of Consolidation Officer, petitioners were granted only one Chak. However, at the stage of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, two chaks were granted and by the impugned order number of Chaks were increased to three and being against the object of consolidation proceedings, requires interference. 18. 17. Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that at the stage of Consolidation Officer, petitioners were granted only one Chak. However, at the stage of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, two chaks were granted and by the impugned order number of Chaks were increased to three and being against the object of consolidation proceedings, requires interference. 18. Learned counsel for petitioners has lastly submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation by impugned orders may have rightly included three plots of the petitioners in consolidation which were earlier kept outside but has made position of petitioners from bad to worse in as much as number of chaks of petitioners were increased from 2 to 3. 19. Petitioners are small tenure holders and are entitled to get one compact chak each and have been put to great injustice, hardship and have suffered substantial irreparable injury. 20. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that petitioners have not challenged order dated 22.1.1996 immediately whereby restoration application filed by one of the contesting respondents herein was allowed on ground that he was not heard and order was passed behind his back and his chak was affected and petitioners waited for outcome of revision petition and only thereafter they have challenged both the orders before this Court, therefore, petitioners are e-stopped from challenging the order dated 22.1.1996 in the present writ petition. 21. Learned counsel for respondents has further submitted that prayer of petitioners was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation so much as that their three holdings which were initially not included in the consolidation proceedings were included and on basis of valuation and share of land holders, chaks were allotted to all chakdars. Petitioners are e-stopped to argue that now they have been put in an adverse position as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has accepted their prayer. 22. Learned counsel for respondents has disputed the argument of counsel for petitioners that they have been allotted three chaks and for that he referred the amended chak map annexed along with counter affidavit, that petitioners have been allotted chak in continuity and area of their holding has also been increased. 23. Heard learned counsel for parties, perused the records and written submissions. 24. The petitioners have filed an appeal before Settlement Officer, Consolidation, mainly on the issue of valuation of land (memo of appeal is not on record). 23. Heard learned counsel for parties, perused the records and written submissions. 24. The petitioners have filed an appeal before Settlement Officer, Consolidation, mainly on the issue of valuation of land (memo of appeal is not on record). The Appellate Forum has decided 33 Appeals by a consolidated order dated 15.2.1989 by a short order on basis of following reason. 25. The petitioners have filed Revision Petition mainly on following grounds: 26. The aforesaid Revision Petition along with other Revision Petitions were initially allowed by order dated 24.6.1992 that:- 27. The Restoration Application filed by Chakdar of Chak No.9A was allowed since Revisions were allowed without hearing him. This order was not immediately challenged, therefore, challenge to it after fresh decision of Revision Petition is unsustainable. 28. The Revision Petitions were decided on 11.12.1998 and the relevant part of impugned order is as follows: 29. It is apparent from the above quoted part of the impugned order that grievance of petitioners specifically raised in their revision petition that their original holding of Gata Nos.794, 795 and 796 was wrongly excluded from consolidation, was considered and these Gatas were included in the consolidation proceedings and the revisional court has allotted respective chaks to different chak holders on basis of their respective shares in accordance with valuation. 30. Learned counsel for petitioners has not been able to demonstrate that allotment of shares of Chak to chak holders on basis of their respective shares was incorrect or contrary to their respective holdings, therefore, petitioners now cannot challenge the impugned order on the ground that their holdings were wrongly included in the consolidation proceedings. There is no challenge to valuation of land either. 31. The other grievance of petitioners that instead of a single consolidated chak, they have been allotted three chaks, however, as demonstrated by counsel for the respondents on the basis of amended chak map, it does not appear that number of chaks allotted to petitioners are three, rather they have been allotted only two chaks and their area of chaks has also been increased. 32. During consolidation proceedings, object of the consolidation proceedings was to allot maximum chaks on respective original holding of Chakdars according to their respective shares which has exactly been done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, as such prayer of the petitioners have been accepted and now they cannot amend their grievances. 33. 32. During consolidation proceedings, object of the consolidation proceedings was to allot maximum chaks on respective original holding of Chakdars according to their respective shares which has exactly been done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, as such prayer of the petitioners have been accepted and now they cannot amend their grievances. 33. Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly considered the grievance of all the chak holders and tried to accommodate them on their original holdings according to their respective shares. 34. Impugned orders cannot be set-aside only on the basis of grievances of petitioners ignoring the chak allotted to the respective chak holders according to their respective shares on basis of valuation of land. 35. This Court has already observed in the proceeding paragraph that petitioners have not challenged the order whereby the restoration application was allowed immediately, therefore, the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioners in Smt.Shivraji (supra) would not be helpful for petitioners. 36. Learned counsel for petitioners has failed to make out any case for interference with impugned order under writ jurisdiction. 37. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.