JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Village Girdawa Shahanpur, Pargana and Tehsil Nazibabad, District Bijnor was notified under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. C.H. Act”) on 16.8.1992. The petitioner is chak holder no.63 and original holding of the petitioner is 95/1, etc. (total area .388 hect.). The petitioner was proposed chak on plot no. 258, area .293 hect. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 are chak holder no.466. The original holding of respondent nos. 4 & 5 are plot no.258, etc., area 3.688 hect. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 were allotted single chak on plot no.258, etc., area 3.650 etc. A time-barred objection under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by respondent nos. 4 & 5 for declaring the plot no.258 as chak out. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.5.2010 excluded the plot no.258, area 3.650 hect. from consolidation scheme. Against the order dated 28.5.2010 passed by the Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was registered as Appeal No.522 of 2010-11. The aforementioned appeal was heard and allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 15.12.2010. The delivery of possession of the village in question including the chak of the petitioner, was taken place on 25.5.2011. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed a time-barred restoration application to recall the order dated 15.12.2010 which was rejected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 23.1.2015. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 challenged the order dated 15.12.2010 by way of revision under Section 4 8 of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard and dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.6.2015. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed a Writ Petition No.42518 of 2015 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 31.7.2015. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed two time-barred objection under Section 21 (1) of the U.P. C.H. Act. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.3.2015 allowed the objection and area .100 hect. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed a Writ Petition No.42518 of 2015 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 31.7.2015. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed two time-barred objection under Section 21 (1) of the U.P. C.H. Act. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.3.2015 allowed the objection and area .100 hect. was excluded from consolidation scheme, affecting the chak of the petitioner, without condoning the long delay in filing the chak objection. Petitioner filed a restoration application before the Consolidation Officer against the order dated 25.3.2015 which was rejected vide order dated 13.4.2015. Against the orders dated 13.4.2015 and 25.3.2015, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 8.6.2015. The revision under Section 4 8 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, was registered as Revision No.486 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed vide order dated 18.6.2015, setting aside the orders dated 8.6.2015, 25.3.2015, 13.4.2015. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 initiated time- barred proceeding under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act for excluding the plot nos. 95/1 & 95/2 from consolidation scheme. The aforementioned proceeding/time-barred objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1.10.2015. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed recall application to recall the order dated 18.6.2015 which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 29.8.2017, setting aside the order dated 18.6.2015 and restoring the revision on its original number. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.53362/2017 before this Court against the order dated 29.8.2017 which was initially entertained but later on the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 1.5.2018. The village in question was notified under Section 52 of the U.P. C.H. Act on 8.2.2018. The transfer application filed on behalf of the petitioner to transfer the proceeding of pending revision, was rejected by the Collector vide order dated 4.11.2020. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.11.2020 dismissed the petitioners revision. The village in question was notified under Section 52 of the U.P. C.H. Act on 8.2.2018. The transfer application filed on behalf of the petitioner to transfer the proceeding of pending revision, was rejected by the Collector vide order dated 4.11.2020. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.11.2020 dismissed the petitioners revision. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by respondent no.1 in Revision No.161/201793131600004 and affirm the order dated 18.6.2015 and further quash the order dated 8.6.2015 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No.255 and order dated 13.4.2015 and 25.3.2015 passed by Consolidation Officer in Case No.191 in proceeding under Section 21 (1) of the U.P. C.H. Act. (ii) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. This Court vide order dated 18.12.2020, directed the counsel for respondent to file counter affidavit. In pursuance of the order of this court dated 18.12.2020, affidavits exchanged between the parties. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally dismissed the petitioner’s revision, without considering the fact that chak of the petitioner cannot be disturbed at such a late stage of consolidation proceeding, on the basis of highly time-barred proceeding initiated by respondent nos. 4 & 5. He further submitted that revision has been decided without summoning the records of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that proceeding under Section 9 of the U.P. C.H. Act for declaring the plot no.258 as C.H. 18 was decided upto the High court and the same has attained finality, as such, on the basis of subsequent time-barred chak allotment proceeding, initiated by respondent nos. 4 & 5, the plot no.258 cannot be declared as chak out. He further submitted that petitioner was proposed chak on plot no.258 and at that time, the land was very up and down condition. He submitted that delivery of possession was affected in the year 2011, accordingly, petitioner has developed his plot and village in question has been notified under Section 52 of the U.P. C.H. Act in the year 2018, as such, the impugned order, affecting the chak of the petitioner is wholly illegal. He submitted that delivery of possession was affected in the year 2011, accordingly, petitioner has developed his plot and village in question has been notified under Section 52 of the U.P. C.H. Act in the year 2018, as such, the impugned order, affecting the chak of the petitioner is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the Consolidation Officer has passed the order on the application of contesting respondent under Section 21 (1) of the U.P. C.H. Act which was highly time-barred, but without condoning the delay in filing the proceeding, the Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 25.3.2015, affecting the chak of the petitioner. He further submitted that chak was allotted to petitioner on plot no.258 after mandatory deduction made in the chak of the contesting respondent and chak of the contesting respondent was already allotted, adjacent to the road, as such, the petitioner’s chak cannot be affected on the basis of highly time-barred proceeding initiated by the contesting respondent. He submitted that the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities should be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5 submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities. He further submitted that plot no.258 is situated on national highway and respondent nos. 4 & 5 are the original tenure holders of the aforementioned plot. He further submitted that plot nos. 95/1, 95/2 and 828 are the original holdings of the petitioner. He submitted that petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. C.H. Act against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer which was dismissed after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, holding that the Consolidation Officer has rightly allotted chak to petitioner and respondent nos. 4 & 5 vide order dated 25.3.2015. He further submitted that revision filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed under the impugned order. He further submitted that respondent nos. 4 & 5 were under urgent need of money, accordingly, executed the sale deed dated 11.4.2016 of old plot no.258, area 188.20 sq. mtr. in favour of Sanjay Singh and handed over possession to him. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. mtr. in favour of Sanjay Singh and handed over possession to him. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that plot nos. 256 & 258 are the original plots of respondent nos. 4 & 5. There is also no dispute about the fact that plot no. 95/1, etc. are the original plots of the petitioner. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner was proposed chak on plot no. 258 which has been disturbed under the impugned order on the basis of time- barred proceeding initiated by respondent nos. 4 & 5. There is also no dispute about the fact that earlier proceeding initiated at the instance of respondent nos. 4 & 5 under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act for declaring the plot no. 258 as C.H. 18 was dismissed and order has attained finality. 8. It is relevant to mention that village in question was notified under Section 4 of the U.P. C.H. Act on 16.8.1992, delivery of possession in the village in question has taken place on 25.5.2011 and notification under Section 52 of the U.P. C.H. Act in respect to the village in question has taken place on 8.2.2018. 9. It is also relevant to mention that proceeding for declaring the plot no. 258 as C.H. 18 was finalized, refusing the relief to respondent nos. 4 & 5 to declare the entire area of plot no.258 as chak out, by dismissing the Writ B No.42518/2015 vide order dated 31.7.2015. The perusal of the order dated 31.7.2015 passed by this Court in Writ B No.42518 of 2015 will be relevant which is quoted hereunder:- “Heard Sri Rajeev Sisodia for the petitioners and Sri Brajesh Shukla for respondent-3. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 15.12.2010 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.6.2015 passed in the proceeding under Section 9 -B as well as chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Plot nos. 256 and 258 were the original holding of the petitioners, which situates on the road side. Plot nos. 256 and 258 were the original holding of the petitioners, which situates on the road side. Initially, the entire area of plot no.256 was left as chak out and the entire area of plot no.258 i.e. 3.650 hectare was valued. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed a single chak to the petitioners on plot no.258 in which an area of 0.004 hectare of plot no.259 and an area of 0.189 hectare of plot no.261 were also included. However, the Consolidation Officer by order dated 28.8.2010 excluded the area of plot nos.259 and 261 from the chak of the petitioners and its valuation of plot 258 has been allotted in plot no.258. Thus, from the stage of Consolidation Officer a single chak has been carved out to the petitioner on plot no.258. One Ajay Kumar Singhal has filed an appeal from the order of Consolidation Officer as earlier some area of plot no.258 was allotted in his chak but the Consolidation Officer had taken away that area from his chak. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 15.12.2010 allowed the appeal of Ajay Kumar Singhal and the valuation as it was determined from the Assistant Consolidation Officer has been maintained. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 18.6.2015 but while dismissing the revision the Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that valuation of plot no.256 was also rightly determined. This observation of Deputy Director of Consolidation is uncalled for as the entire area of plot no.256 has been left as chak out and its valuation has not been determined from any stage. Hence , this writ petition has been filed. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners. The observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of plot no.256 is based on conjectures and surmises as the entire area of plot no.256 was left as chak out. So far as plot no.258 is concerned the chak of the petitioners has been allotted on plot no.258 . Since plot no.258 is a very big plot having area 3.650 hectare as such it is not possible to left the entire area of this plot as chak out. So far as plot no.258 is concerned the chak of the petitioners has been allotted on plot no.258 . Since plot no.258 is a very big plot having area 3.650 hectare as such it is not possible to left the entire area of this plot as chak out. However, it is not denied that plot in dispute is a road side land but the chak of the petitioners has been allotted on this plot itself. Thus, absolutely, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.” 10. It will also be relevant to mention that after finalization of the proceeding initiated under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act in respect to plot no.258, respondent nos. 4 & 5 initiated proceeding under Section 21 (1) of the U.P. C.H. Act which has been entertained and allowed, declaring 0.100 hect. area of plot no.258M as chak out as well as disturbing the chak of the petitioner by taking out the area from plot no.258M and allotting him chak on plot no.828, 261, 259, 258. The allotment of chak proceeding cannot be initiated at any time during consolidation operation on the ground that plot in question is the original road-side plot of the tenure holder concerned. It is correct that road-side plot is to be allotted to the original tenure holder but if no proper objection has been filed by the original tenure holder within the limitation as provided under the U.P. C.H. Act, the consolidation will be otherwise. The case of the petitioner is that the surface of plot no.258 at the time of allotment to petitioner was in uneven/irregular condition and petitioner has developed the same, as such, the highly time-barred proceeding initiated by respondent nos. 4 & 5 is nothing but abuse of process of law. 11. It is also relevant to mention that once the relief for declaring the plot no.258 as C.H. 18 under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act has been refused by the consolidation authorities and order has been maintained by this court, then the consolidation authorities cannot declare the area of plot no.258 as C.H. 18 in the allotment of chak proceeding. The procedure prescribed under the U.P. C.H. Act is to be followed in proper manner otherwise the entire proceeding will be vitiated. 12. The procedure prescribed under the U.P. C.H. Act is to be followed in proper manner otherwise the entire proceeding will be vitiated. 12. It is also material to mention that this Court while deciding Writ B No.42518 of 2015 filed by respondent nos. 4 & 5, arising out of proceeding under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act has taken into consideration the claim of respondent nos. 4 & 5 to declare that plot no.258 as C.H. 18 and held that plot no.258 has been rightly refused to be declared as C.H. 18. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 18.11.2020, passed by respondent no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor; 8.6.2015, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No.255; 13.4.2015 and 25.3.2015 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No.191 cannot be sustained in the eye of law which are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 14. The writ petition stands allowed. 15. No order as to costs.