Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Shivadhar Singh was the recorded tenure holder of plot No. 253/2 of Village Bankipur Pargana Nizamabad Tahsil Sadar district Azamgarh. After consolidation operations set in it is alleged by the petitioner who belongs to Washerman (Dhobi) community, a part of the said area of the holding of Shivdhar Singh namely an area 0.553 kari was placed out side the consolidation operation and the balance of the area of the said plot was reserved for ‘Dhobi Abadi” . An objection was filed by Shivadhar Singh under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The area which was allegedly reserved for Dhobi Abadi was valued and an equivalent area was allotted to Shivadhar Singh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a fresh objection was filed under section 9 substituting the heirs of Shivadhar Singh by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, son and his widow respectively on 13.10.2009 alleging that the said land should be included in the holding of the objectors as they had their Abadi site and houses as well as cattle troughs over the same. The Consolidation Officer respondent No. 3 passed orders on 15.12.2009 placing the balance area out of consolidation operations. The said objection was allowed after accepting the application for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is the beneficiary of the area which was reserved as “Dhobi Abadi” and the order dated 15.12.2009 was passed without giving any opportunity, as such the petitioner who was an aggrieved person filed a restoration application. The said restoration was allowed on 29.12.2009.

4. The respondent No. 4 preferred a revision against the said order dated 29.12.2009. During the pendency of the said revision the respondent No. 4 also filed an appeal against the recall order which according to the learned counsel was not maintainable. In effect he had availed of two remedies which were misdirected.

5. During the pendency of the appeal, the Settlement Officer Consolidation called for a report which was submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. On receipt of the said report the respondent No. 4 got his appeal dismissed on11.8.2010.

6. It appears that a revision was filed against the order dated 4.4.1988 passed in appeal No. 22 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was the basis of recording the plot in question as Dhobi Abadi. This is evident from CH Form No. 21 which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. This revision was time barred against which the petitioner filed an objection. The objection was rejected and the revision has been ultimately allowed with a direction to the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute in accordance with law.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the revision was highly barred by time and even otherwise once the land has been reserved for “Dhobi Abadi” and the petitioner had been allocated land in lieu of his holding then there was no occasion for the Consolidation Officer to have allowed the revision and sent the matter for decision afresh. It is urged that the order dated 4.4.1988 having became final the same was not required to be interfered with.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has urged that there is no provision under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for reserving any site for any particular community as held in the present case. There can be a reservation under the Consolidation Scheme for general Abadi or for Abadi for the Scheduled Caste in general but there can be no reservation for one particular community of Scheduled Caste. Even otherwise once the holding of the contesting respondents and the same had been kept out for consolidation operations then, if any reservation was to be made in respect of the area, the Land Management Committee and the Consolidation authorities should have been called upon to examine the claim relating to such reservation and it is only upon kno