Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3737 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 43 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shiv Sahay Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya),Ravi Shanker Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the ofÏce of learned Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.3. Under challenge is the order dated 26.7.2024 passed by the D.D.C., Hardoi whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 3.11.2017 passed by the S.O.C. on an appeal preferred by respondent no.4 has been allowed and afÏrmed by the D.D.C. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner was the original tenure holder of plot nos.597/2, 587, 588, 545, 547, 585, 592, 572 & 592/1. It is urged that the petitioner had filed his objections before the C.O. primarily relating to plot no.585 and upon due consideration, the same was allowed by the consolidation ofÏcer by means of the order dated 19.8.2016. Private respondent no.4 being aggrieved against the said order, had preferred an appeal wherein he had claimed that he has been deprived of his rights in respect of plot nos.593, 584 and 528 which had about 45 Eucalyptus trees which have not been taken note of. Considering this aspect, the S.O.C., allowed the appeal of respondent no.4 by means of the order dated 3.11.2017. It is at this stage, the petitioner being aggrieved, preferred a revision before the D.D.C. The memo of revision has been brought on record by the petitioner as Annexure No.6. In the entire memo of revision, the two grounds taken by the petitioner were that the S.O.C. had allowed the appeal without making a spot inspection and the other was that the petitioner has been deprived of his plots specially plot no.585 where there were two boring situate, which were necessary for irrigation. It is in the aforesaid context if the order of the D.D.C. is seen, it would indicate that the D.D.C. has clearly noticed that there was no boring of the petitioner. The boring belong to Shri Asha Ram and Shri Shiv Raj who had paid a sum of Rs.7,000/- and a compromise was also entered between the parties and therefore, the chak of Shiv Raj was carved out taking note of the said boring. It is in this context that the D.D.C. found that the ground that the petitioner was deprived of his source of irrigation was not quite correct and rejected the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner who has attempted to assail the said finding however did not dispute the fact that in the revision it was never stated that the boring belongs to the petitioner and not to some other person. It is also to be seen that once a finding has been recorded by the D.D.C. regarding a compromise and a payment of Rs.7,000/- which was received in lieu of the boring, hence the contention of the petitioner in this regard pales into insignificance. There is actually no challenge in the entire proceedings raised that no such compromise was made and that the payment of Rs.7,000/- in lieu of boring was not made. In this view of the matter, this court is satisfied that there is no error in the impugned order, which may persuade this court to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 21.1.2025/Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench