HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 844 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Asthana, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.06.2022 and 27.02.2025 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation, Hardoi as well as Consolidation Officer, Hardoi. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that according to the petitioner, initially the Plot No. 201 situated in Village Allahadad Pargana Sandi Tehsil Sawajpur District Hardoi was shown as a public way (Kharanja) but subsequently after consolidation, the new number allotted is 363. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has preferred an application U/S 42(a) of the Consolidation of Holding Act before the Consolidation Officer stating that there is an error of recording the Rasta as 363 while the number should be 362. The consolidation Officer rejected the application of the petitioner pursuant to which a revision was filed by him which has also been rejected by the Dy. Director of Consolidation by means of order dated 27.02.2025. 5. The Dy. Director of Consolidation has looked into the record and also considered the grievance raised by the petitioner and he has stated that previously for Gata No. 201 was recorded as a public-way (Rasta) and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar Asthana, Pramod Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Suresh Chandra .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And Others .....Respondent(s) subsequently on initiation of the consolidation proceedings the new number was allotted as 363 which is also recorded as a Rasta and did not find any ground for interference and rejected the application of the petitioner. 6. Before this Court the petitioner has reiterated the arguments raised before the authorities below. There is no material on record which may indicate that there is an error in recorded the Rasta on Gata No. 363 otherwise, this Court finds that full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by both the authorities below and they have given adequate reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no ground made out for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. September 4, 2025 Ravi/ WRIB No. 844 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench