JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 3 as well as learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4.

2. By way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the consolidation authorities in two separate proceedings i.e. under Section 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act") and under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that consolidation authorities have incorrectly fixed two different exchange value of plot no. 158. For some of the portion it has been fixed 90 paise and for remaining portion it has been fixed 70 paise. In this backdrop of the fact, the petitioner has initially invoked proceeding under Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act and after becoming unsuccessful in the said proceeding, he has resorted to another proceeding under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act. As such, the petitioner has demanded to deduct the exchange value of plot no. 158 from 90 paise to 70 paise.

4. Facts culled out from the averment made in the writ petition are that plot no. 1