JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Varma, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.7.2018 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut in proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and against the order dated 4.10.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) 4th, Meerut Region, Meerut.

2. The respondent No. 5 filed an application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the District Magistrate, Meerut and prayed that in the map, the land which had been shown as a chak marg in between his plot nos. 502 and 564 and which was running from North to South be removed from the final maps. The petitioners were arrayed as respondents in the case. They filed their objection to the application filed by the respondent No. 5 on 26.3.2015 and a report was called for by the Additional District Magistrate from the Consolidator who submitted his report on 13.3.2015. This report was also objected to by the petitioners. However, when the respondent No. 3 on 27.3.2015 accepted the report dated 13.3.2015, the petitioners preferred a Revision which was allowed on 8.7.2015 and the matter was remanded back to the Additional District Magistrate. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3-the Additional District Magistrate once again passed the impugned order dated 19.7.2018 which was affirmed by the Revisional Court on 20.7.2018. Hence, the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that when the respondent No. 5 had prayed for the removal of the chak marg which had been shown in the map then he had infact tried to get the chak marg running over plot No. 501 removed. He has stated that the road which ran over plot No. 576 was connected by the petitioners' plot on plot No. 523 by the chak marg which ran over plot No. 501. Learned counsel has submitted that the consolidation proceedings were completed in the year 1961 and since then the petitioners had been using the chak road over plot No. 501 to reach their plot No. 523. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the application of the respondent No. 5 was taken up and the Consolidator had given his report on 13.3.2015, in his report, the Consolidator had categorically stated that there was one plot No. 501 which though had an area of 0.708 hectares was on the spot showing to be having an area of 0.1056 hectares and, therefore, the Consolidator had by his report suggested that the excess land from the plot No. 501 be removed and the plot Nos. 502 and 564 be given the excess land. Here, learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that the plot No. 501 and the road over it even as per the report of the Consolidator definitely were in existence. Learned counsel further submitted that the Consolidator in his cross-examination had stated that he had not made any spot inspection and that the Consolidator, even though had found that the plot No. 501 had some additional land, he definitely did not say that the plot No. 501 had to be totally removed. In paragraphs Nos. 14, 25, 32 and 33 of the writ petition, which will be reproduced in this judgment, it has also been stated by the petitioners that they had no other chak marg other than the one which was being sought to be removed from plot No. 501, to approach their plot No. 523. Paragraphs 14, 25, 32 and 33 of the writ petition are being reproduced here as under:

"14. That the Consolidator in its cross-examination in chief has categorically stated that there is no way to reach the petitioners' plot No. 523 except to the Chak-Road No. 501 which is situated in the eastern side of Plot No. 502 and western side of plot No. 564 of respondent No. 5. He further stated that during the consolidation proceedings it is necessary to provide a Chak-Road for all chak-holders to reach their plots in Khasra No. 523 except to the disputed Chak-Road there is no other Chak-Road.

........................

25. That the petitioners are owner of Plot No. 523